Disposed

Jyothi Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Nov 2019WP(C)/6208/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to dispose of the petitioner's application to delete her property from the draft Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, to be done within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to dispose of the petitioner's application within three months.

Jyothi Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.6208 OF 2019(A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JYOTHI KRISHNAN AGED 56 YEARS A 702, CITI SCAPE, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, MUMBAI 400 059. BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SANTHI

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶10

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE 673 001.

¶11

3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN, VENGERI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SR.GP. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.6208 OF 2019(A)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner asserts that her property, having an extent of 42 cents comprised of in Sy.No.67/1 (old Survey No.82/4) of Vengeri Village, is a garden land, remaining as such for the last several years and much prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act' for short), but that it has been incorrectly included in the draft Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) constituted under the provisions of the said Act. She, therefore, submits that she had preferred Exhibit P2 application before the LLMC under the provisions of Rule 4(6) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules ('the Rules' for short), but that no action has been taken until now and prays that the same be directed to be taken up and disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

The learned Government Pleader appearing on

¶20

behalf of the official respondents submits that if Exhibit P2 application is still pending before the LLMC, then there is no legal impediment in the same being taken up and

¶21

WP(C).No.6208 OF 2019(A)

¶22

¶23

considered in terms of law; however, praying that this Court make no affirmative declarations on the entitlement of the

¶24

petitioner to any relief as sought for by her in the said application and leave it to the said Authority to take an apposite decision in terms of law.

¶25

When I consider the afore submissions, it is obvious that going by the provisions of Rule 4(6) of the Rules, since the Data Bank is only in its draft stage, it is solely for the LLMC to take a decision on the request of the petitioner to delete the property in question from the same. I am, therefore, of the view that this Court would only be justified in ordering this writ petition, directing consideration of Exhibit P2 application within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶26

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 3^rd respondent - LLMC to take up Exhibit P2 application of the petitioner and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to her, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

WP(C).No.6208 OF 2019(A)

¶28

¶29

I clarify that I have not considered the merits of any of the contentions of the petitioner and that it will be up-to the LLMC to take an appropriate decision on Exhibit P2 application, after obtaining the satellite images and requisite reports from the other officials as also, after conducting necessary site inspection, leading to a final order, within the time frame afore fixed.

¶30

Needless to say, the petitioner will also, as and when called upon to do so, remit the requisite fee for obtaining the satellite images without causing any delay, so as to enable the LLMC to comply with the afore directions implicitly.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

ska

¶35

WP(C).No.6208 OF 2019(A)

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.11.2017 SUBMITTED TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXHIBIT P2

¶41

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.11.2018 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Jyothi Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyothi Krishnan v. State of Kerala

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

Shiny Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Chandran K.P. Vs the Olavanna Grama Panchayath

Biju.M.D., Vs Kochi Municipal Corporation

Salmathul Shamseera, Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Abdul Rehim Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Daya General Hospital Private Limited Vs the District Collector