Remanded

Manappuram Finance Limited, v. the Secretary, Valappad Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC26 Nov 2019WP(C)/6089/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act solely for lack of satellite images. The court directed the officer to reconsider the application de hors the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P2 directing the RDO to reconsider the application after hearing and pass orders within two months.

Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs the Secretary, Valappad Grama… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.6089 OF 2019(I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANAPPURAM FINANCE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT IV/470A (OLD) IV/638 (NEW) MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 567, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MANAGER (LEGAL).

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE SECRETARY, VALAPPAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VALAPAD (P.O.), THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 567.

¶12

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALAPPAD, VALAPPAD (P.O.), THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 567.

¶13

3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VALAPPAD, VALAPPAD (P.O.), THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 567.

¶14

4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFCIER, THRISSUR 680 003.

¶15

5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR 680 003.

¶16

6 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURAL, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJPRADEEP

¶18

SR.GP.K.AMMINIKUTTY

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.6089 OF 2019(I)

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner, which is stated to be Finance Ltd. Co., has filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P2, whereby, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short) has rejected their application preferred under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Paddy Land Act' for short), merely for the reason that satellite images with respect to the property had not been obtained from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). The petitioner says that Ext.P2 is untenable because their property is not a 'paddy land', and is admittedly not included in the Data Bank, but that it continues to be classified as one only in the Basic Tax Register and Revenue Records. They say that since it is thus an 'unnotified land', as per the Paddy Land Act, it clearly means that it is not a “paddy land” and therefore, that there was no requirement for the RDO to seek its satellite images.

¶24

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the

¶25

¶26

WP(C).No.6089 OF 2019(I)

¶27

official respondent, submits that the application of the petitioner can be reconsidered in tune with the requirements under Section 27A of the Act and that this can be done without any further delay after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also. She says that Ext.P2 had been issued by the RDO under the impression that the satellite imagery was also necessary for passing an order under Section 27A of the Act.

¶28

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that when the RDO makes an order under Section 27A of the Act, it presupposes that the property is a “garden land”, which is not included in the Data Bank but that it is remaining as a 'Nilam' only in the Basic Tax Register and Revenue Records. Obviously, therefore, there is no requirement for a satellite image to prove this and I am therefore, of the view that the RDO must reconsider the matter de hors Ext.P2.

¶29

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside

¶30

WP(C).No.6089 OF 2019(I)

¶31

¶32

Ext.P2 and direct the RDO to reconsider the petitioner's application, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them; and then issue necessary orders, following due procedure, without any further delay but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶36

nak

¶37

WP(C).No.6089 OF 2019(I)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WPC NO. 28909 OF 2018 DATED 3.9.2018.

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.1.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 1122/1962 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, TRIPRAYAR DATED 16.12.1962

¶43

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Manappuram Finance Limited, v. the Secretary, Valappad Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manappuram Finance Limited, v. the Secretary, Valappad Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Menothukavu Bhagavathi Temple Managing Committee Vs the State of Kerala

Mustaffa Thattancherry, Vs the Director of Panchayat

Sakeer Hussain, Vs State of Kerala

K.Ramanathan Vs the District Collector, Kasaragod

M.B Sathi Vs the District Collector

Eranjimannam Desam Sri Purattil Bhagawathi Kshethra Committeed Vs District Collector,Palakkad