Dismissed

Martin Thomas, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC3 Nov 2020WP(C)/16781/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the classification of the petitioner's property as Nilam in the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The Court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider the correction request after obtaining a report from KSREC.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the fifth respondent to consider the Ext.P5 application for correction of the data bank after obtaining a report from KSREC.

Martin Thomas, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16781 OF 2020(W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARTIN THOMAS, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, ANJAL HOUSE, ESTATEMUKKU, EKAROOL P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 574.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION (PO), KOZHIKODE 673 020.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION (PO), KOZHIKODE 673 020.

¶12

3 THE TAHASILDAR, THAMARSSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE 673 574.

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAROTH VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE 675 573.

¶14

5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE THAMARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, (REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THAMARASSERY)

¶15

KOZHIKODE - 673574

¶16

6 STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶18

SRI. K.J.MANURAJ – GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.16781 OF 2020(W)

¶21

¶22

W.P.(C).No.16781 of 2020

¶23

---------------------------------------------------------------

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Petitioner owns an item of property. It is stated that the said property was originally a paddy land and the same was converted as a dry/garden land several years prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that since the property is described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records as also in the draft data bank prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act, he is unable to use the property for other purposes. According to the petitioner, since the property was converted long prior to the Act, the same should not have been shown in the data bank as 'Nilam'. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P5 application for correction of the entry relating to that property in the data bank. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the fifth

¶26

¶27

WP(C).No.16781 OF 2020(W)

¶28

respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Act in considering the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 application.

¶29

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶30

3. In the light of the decision of this court in Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State

¶31

of Kerala, 2014 (1) KLT 774, in which it was held that the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Act can look into the ground realities and make appropriate corrections in the data bank at any time, there cannot be any impediment in directing the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider the request of the petitioner for correction of the data bank.

¶32

In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the fifth respondent to consider Ext.P5 application preferred by the petitioner, after obtaining report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) as to the position of the property of the petitioner at the time of commencement of the Act.

¶33

¶34

WP(C).No.16781 OF 2020(W)

¶35

Ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall pay the fees stipulated by the KSREC for issuing their report, as and when directed so by the Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall submit an application in the form prescribed in terms of the Circular of the Government bearing No.TA(2)18988/16 also before the fifth respondent, so as to enable them to comply with the direction aforesaid effectively.

¶36

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶37

¶38

WP(C).No.16781 OF 2020(W)

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21/07/2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 4217/13 OF SRO THAMARASSERY DATED 05/10/2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 3270 OF 2005 DATED 08/08/2005 OF SRO, THAMARASSERY. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. L 10/1181/2004 DATED 01/04/2004 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, THAMARASSERY DATED 14.2.20. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/07/2020 ALONG WITH CHELAN FOR RS. 1500/EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 01.08.20 ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN FOR RS.1,000/- RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Martin Thomas, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Martin Thomas, v. the District Collector

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

Muralidharan.C Vs Pravin Kumar Purwar

Travancore Readymix (P) Ltd.. Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Immanuel Crushers and Mines (P) Ltd. Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Sreenivasan Nair P Vs Perumbavoor Municipality

Muhammed Rafeeq, Vs Vengola Grama Panchayath

Umadevi.M.J. Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer