Dismissed

Jaison Thomas v. the Corporation of Cochin by Its Secretary

Kerala HC26 Mar 2019WP(C)/6159/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition under Article 226 seeking correction of land revenue records from 'Nilam' to 'dry land' and acceptance of a building permit, dismissed the petition. The Court held the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 before invoking the writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Relief sought against the 1st respondent Corporation left open pending disposal of an application under Section 27A of the Act.

Jaison Thomas Vs the Corporation of Cochin by Its Secretary — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 6159 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JAISON THOMAS

¶8

S/O. THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT 71, NORTH GIRINAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB CHACKO SRI.MATHEWS JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN BY ITS SECRETARY ERNAKULAM-PIN-682011.

¶12

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, PIN-682001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN,SC, COCHIN CORPORATION

¶14

SRI PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 6159 of 2019

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of a property having an extent of 1.82 Ares in Survey No.609/6 of Elamkulam Village, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to dispose of Ext.P5 application dated 24.09.2018, which is one submitted before the 2^nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, for correcting the records of the land in question, as 'dry land' instead of 'Nilam'. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 representation; and an order directing the 1^st respondent Corporation to accept the building permit application, without insisting for correction of revenue records.

¶20

On 07.03.2019 and 14.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and also the learned Government Pleader were directed to get instructions.

¶21

WP(C).No. 6159 of 2019

¶22

-3-

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Corporation and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶24

The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for a writ of mandamus commanding consideration of Ext.P5 application for correction of revenue records in respect of his property. The acceptance of application for building permit by the 1^st respondent Corporation is possible only after correction of revenue records.

¶25

As far as the correction of revenue records, as sought for in Ext.P5 application is concerned, the petitioner has to comply with the statutory mandate under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act Act, 2008. Such an application has to be made before the 2^nd respondent, in the statutory form, which would be accompanied by necessary documents.

¶26

In Santosh Kumar v. Central Warehousing

¶27

WP(C).No. 6159 of 2019

¶28

-4-

¶29

Corporation [(1986) 2 SCC 343] the Apex Court held that what may not be done under the provisions of the Act may not be permitted to be done by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court held further that, Article 226 is not meant to avoid or circumvent the process of the law and the provisions of the Statute.

¶30

Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision referred to supra , conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, in the absence of a proper application made before the 2^nd respondent, as per the statutory mandate of Section 27A of the Act, along with necessary documents.

¶31

In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed for the aforesaid reason; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a proper application before the 2^nd respondent, invoking the provisions under Section 27A of the Act and pursuing that application.

¶32

WP(C).No. 6159 of 2019

¶33

-5-

¶34

The relief sought for in this writ petition against the 1^st

¶35

respondent Corporation is left open to be sought for, after

¶36

disposal of the application under Section 27A of the Act.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶39

bpr

¶40

WP(C).No. 6159 of 2019

¶41

-6-

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 15.09.2017 ISSUED OFFICER, ELAMKULA	LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED BY THE VILLAGE M VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 13.04.2018 OFFICER, ELAMKULA	POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE M.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 10.04.2017 OF COCHIN.	PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF LAND DETAILS FROM KRIS	IDENTIFICATION HI BHAVAN, VYTTILA,
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF APPL THE NATURE OF LAN PETITIONER TO THE	ICATION FOR CORRECTING D SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL FIEL OF COCHIN VYTTILA THE SECOND RESPON	REPORT FROM THE D OFFICER,CORPORATION DATED 4.10.2018 TO DENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER T OFFICER.	REPORT FROM THE O REVENUE DIVISIONAL
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONA 23.12.2018.	REPRESENTATION TO THE L OFFICER,DATED
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE 22.12.2016 ISSUED SELF GOVERNMENT,	ABOVE CIRCULAR DATED BY MINISTRY OF LOCAL KERALA.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE 06.12.2017 ISSUED SELF GOVERNMENT,	ABOVE CIRCULAR DATED BY MINISTRY OF LOCAL KERALA.

¶45

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Jaison Thomas v. the Corporation of Cochin by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaison Thomas v. the Corporation of Cochin by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdurahiman Vs the Secretary

Muralichand Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Jacob.P.J Vs the State of Kerala

O.Pradeepan Vs the Secretary

Sudheer.O.G Vs Village Officer

Suvarna Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority