Dismissed

Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Oct 2020RP/323/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a review petition challenging a judgment that declined a direction to utilise property for non-paddy purposes. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an error on the face of the records as documents did not clearly prove the land was not wet land.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for want of merit due to absence of error apparent on the face of the records.

Thomas Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942

¶5

RP.No.323 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 28062/2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28062/2019(G) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶8

THOMAS AGED 59 YEARS S/O FRANCIS,PUTHEZHATH HOUSE, KALOOR.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682017.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682021.

¶13

3 THE TALUK TAHSILDAR,

¶14

OFFICE OF THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682011.

¶15

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE,KADAVANTHRA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682020.

¶16

5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,FORT KOCHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682001.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

GP B HARISH KUMAR

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

RP.No.323 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 28062/2019

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Dated this the 13th day of October 2020

¶24

This Court vide judgment dated 13.1.2020 dismissed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner seeking direction to the 5^th respondent therein to consider Ext.P10 dated 3.10.2019 under the provision of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, with a liberty to move appropriate application under the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

¶25

The instant review petition is filed on the ground that Ext.P9 possession certificate dated 30.7.2018, shows the nature of land as wet land, whereas in the revenue records the land is classified as converted land. Ext.P1 is the title deed, Ext.P2 is the survey sketch and Ext.P4 is the licence issued by the Corporation of Cochin for running a business in the premises in question. All these documents would show that the land is not a wet land.

¶26

In support of the aforementioned contentions, petitioner produced judgment of the Division Bench W.P. (C)No.33717/2016, wherein the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

¶27

RP.No.323 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 28062/2019

¶28

¶29

Supreme Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another [2015 (2) KHC 109] has been referred to. The Hon'ble Apex court laid down the law that the original entry in the BTR cannot be removed, however, if the property is not included in the data bank constituted as per Act, 2008, one is entitled to seek utilisation of the property for other purposes other than paddy cultivation as per the provisions of the KLU Order, 1967.

¶30

The above referred writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus directing the District Collector, Ernakulam and the municipality to prohibit the builder from filling up 39.20 Ares of uncultivated paddy land comprised in Re.Survey No.104/1 and 104/2 of Thrikakara Village.

¶31

On a perusal of Ext.P8 maintained by the Village Officer, only entry regarding Survey No.173/5 is recorded, whereas in Ext.P9 possession certificate, Survey No.173/5 and 181/5 are shown. Therefore, in the absence of complete documents showing the entries in the revenue records regarding subdivision of survey numbers, petitioner cannot take the advantage of the aforementioned documents.

¶32

RP.No.323 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 28062/2019

¶33

¶34

Therefore, I do not think review petitioner has made out any case justifying reviewing of the judgment, especially due to the reason that there is no error apparent on the face of the records. The review petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

Jm/

Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas v. the State of Kerala

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

Ramesan.M.K., Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

Inzamam Salim Shah, Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Sivadasan Vs the State of Kerala

M.Salida, Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General)

Lourdes Hospital Vs Corporation of Cochin

Dineshan K.K. Vs v. Sambashiva Rao