Remanded

Govindankutty, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2019WP(C)/9867/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, unable to adjudicate factual claims regarding illegal land conversion via writ, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct a full inquiry and decide on necessary action against the respondent who allegedly exceeded permitted conversion limits under Ext.P2.

What did the court decide?

The RDO is directed to hear both sides, inspect premises, verify violations of Ext.P2, and take a final decision within one month.

Govindankutty, 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

MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.9867 OF 2019(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GOVINDANKUTTY, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, ITI COLONY, KADAMKODE, PALAKKAD

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MANU SRINATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND SURVEY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORTE, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 013

¶12

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶13

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 001

¶14

4 DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISED COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUTH NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA - 678 001

¶15

5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KANNADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KANNADI PANNICODE ROAD,

¶17

KANNADI - I, KERALA - 678 701

¶18

6 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KANNADI - 1, KERALA - 678 701

¶19

7 VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNADI VILLAGE OFFICE, DPO ROAD, NURANI, KANNADI-1, KERALA - 678 001

¶20

8 VIJAYAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KOLLANGOKKU PARAMBU, KANNADI P.O, KANNADI, PALAKKAD - 678 001 SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY GP K.J.MANURAJ

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No.9867 OF 2019(G)

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the eighth respondent has, in violation of the conditions in Ext.P2 permission granted by the District Level Authorised Committee (DLAC), constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Paddy Land Act'), converted much more land than what is permitted therein; and therefore, asserts that the said permission should be revoked by the competent Authority and that necessary action against the eighth respondent must be initiated without any further delay.

¶26

The petitioner says that on account of the illegal actions of the eighth respondent, the water flow to his property has been completely obstructed and that this is causing perdition to his paddy lands and further that the eighth respondent is continuing with such activities notwithstanding the specific report filed before this Court by the RDO, wherein it has been found that he has converted more land than what is permitted through Ext.P2.

¶27

The petitioner, therefore, prays that this writ petition be allowed and the concerned Authority be directed to take

¶28

WP(C).No.9867 OF 2019(G)

¶29

¶30

necessary action without any further delay.

¶31

The learned counsel for the eighth respondent submitted that the allegations made against his client in this writ petition are completely untrue and that he is confident of convincing the competent Authorities, if he is given an opportunity of submitting his version. The learned counsel prays that this writ petition be ordered only on such terms.

¶32

The learned senior Government Pleader submitted that as directed by this Court, a report has been placed on record by the RDO, wherein it has been stated that the eighth respondent has converted more land than what was permitted through Ext.P2. He says that, therefore, necessary action will be taken and completed without any further delay.

¶33

Taking note of the afore submissions and since the allegations made by the petitioner in this writ petition are squarely in the factual realm, the accuracy of which cannot be ascertained by this Court while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am of the view that the RDO must now look into the entire matter and take a final decision as to the steps to be taken against the eighth respondent, if any, after

¶34

WP(C).No.9867 OF 2019(G)

¶35

¶36

hearing both sides without any further delay.

¶37

In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I order this writ petition and direct the third respondent - RDO to hear the petitioner and the eighth respondent and take a decision on the allegations made by the petitioner in Exts.P3 and P6 complaints, adverting to his own report placed before this Court along with the memo of the learned Government Pleader dated 06.11.2019, thus leading to an appropriate order thereon.

¶38

The afore exercise shall be completed by the RDO as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and in the meanwhile, he shall forthwith inspect the premises and ensure that the construction, if any, is confined to the area allowed by Ext.P2 and nothing more and further that if any violation of Ext.P2 is noticed, then the eighth respondent be ordered to cease construction carried on in such illegal manner, after following due procedure.

¶39

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶40

Stu

¶41

WP(C).No.9867 OF 2019(G)

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF TH APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION
	OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY PREFERRED BY THE
	RESPONDENT NO.8 ALONG WITH THE REPORTS OF
	AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICER AND THE
	RECOMMENDATION OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING
	COMMITTEE DATED 13.09.2010

¶46

EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RA(7) 13/85/10 DATED 13.06.2011 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISED COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT P3	THE PETITION/COMPLAINT DATED 23.03.2016 FILED BEFORE THE RDO, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. XNM/836/2016 DATED 19.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE RDO
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 06.08.2016 FILED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER BEFORE THE RDO, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26.08.2016 FILED BEFORE THE RDO
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.10.2018 TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER AND THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ISSUED BY THE SUB-COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 9(6) OF THE ACT OF 2008 DATED 15.03.2019 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD
RESPONDENTS'	EXHIBITS : NIL

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

P.A TO JUDGE.

Govindankutty, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindankutty, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Radhakrishnan Vs the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Jayasree.K.N, Vs Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath

Sajeeda Beevi Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality

St.Antony S Latin Catholic Church Vs State of Kerala

Dileep.S Vs Rahuleyan Pillai

Renjith.S Vs the Kottayam Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary