Allowed

Dr.Geevarghese George, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2020WP(C)/19766/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the writ petition challenging the Local Level Monitoring Committee's rejection of an application to reclassify land. The court found the LLMC failed to distinguish between pre- and post-statute agricultural activities. The petitioner was directed to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer with a Form 5 application.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to move the Revenue Divisional Officer in Form 5. The RDO shall consider the matter afresh within three months. The court was empowered to file the application on behalf of

Dr.Geevarghese George, Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.19766 OF 2019(U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR.GEEVARGHESE GEORGE, AGED 82 YEARS, S/O.LATE GEEVARGHESE, NOW RESIDING AT S-103, 4TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI- 600040.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GIKKU JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, KOTTAYAM- 686 575.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANARCADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM- 686 019.

¶13

4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, AYARKUNNAM PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY CONVENER, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AYARKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AYARKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM686564.

¶14

R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

S GOPINATHAN SR GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.19766 OF 2019(U)

¶18

..2..

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 23rd day of October 2020

¶21

This writ petition is filed challenging the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), Ayarkunnam Panchayat.

¶22

The petitioner is the holder of a land in Re.Sy.Nos. 401/1, 401/2, 401/10, 401/11 and 401/12 of Manarcadu Village.

¶23

The land has been classified as paddy land in the data bank. The petitioner approached the LLMC to correct the entry. The application preferred by the petitioner before the LLMC was considered by the LLMC and rejected the same by Ext.P7 impugned order.

¶24

It is stated in the impugned order that after inspection,

¶25

the committee found no reason to correct the entry in regard to the land.

¶26

The petitioner placed reliance on the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC)

¶27

WP(C).No.19766 OF 2019(U)

¶28

..3..

¶29

produced as Ext.P5. It is appropriate to refer relevant observations

¶30

in the report:

¶31

“SURVEY NUMBER 401/1

¶32

The survey plot was observed under mixed plantation crops, mainly coconut from the date of April 2002 (fig.4.). This practice continued up to 2010 (Fig.5). The 2013 imagery shows change in land use in the eastern side of plot (Fig.6). The same status continued up to 2016 (Fig.7).

¶33

SURVEY NUMBER 401/2

¶34

The survey plot was observed as under crop land mainly banana and tapioca in the data of 2002 (Fig.4). In the imageries of February 2010 (Fig.5), found changes in agricultural practices in the eastern portion with plantation and remaining area under fallow keeping other side under mixed crops. In January 2013 (Fig.6) shows change in landuse in the western side of the survey plot.

¶35

SURVEY NUMBER 402/10

¶36

A building was observed in the survey plot in the images of 2002 (Fig.4) with plantation crops. The trend continued in the years April 2010 (Fig.5), February 2010 (Fig.6), January 2013 (Fig.6) and January 2016 (Fig.7).

¶37

SURVEY NUMBER 402/11

¶38

A building was observed in the said survey plot in all images; 2002 (Fig.4). April 2010 (Fig.5), February 2010 (Fig.6), January 2013 (Fig.6) and January 2016 (Fig.7)

¶39

SURVEY NUMBER 402/12

¶40

The survey plot was observed under mixed plantation from the data of April 2002 (Fig.4). This

¶41

WP(C).No.19766 OF 2019(U)

¶42

..4..

¶43

practice continued upto January 2016 (Fig.7).”

¶44

After adverting to the images from 2002 till 2016, it was

¶45

observed and concluded in the report as follows:

¶46

“OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSION

¶47

The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2002, 2010, 2013 and 2016 for the survey plots.

¶48

The satellite images of survey number 401/1 shows that this survey plot was under vegetation cover in the images of 2002 and 2010. The image 2013 and 2016 shows some change in landuse activities in eastern side of this survey plot.

¶49

The satellite images of survey number 401/2, shows under paddy land in 2002. the image of 2010, 2013 and 2016 shows some change in landuse activities in this survey plot.

¶50

The satellite imageries of 402/10 and 402/11 shows this survey plots was observed under construction in the images of 2002. No significant change were observed in years; 2010, 2013 and 2016. The images of 402/12 shows the survey plot was under agriculture plantation in the images of 2002, 2010, 2013 and 2016.”

¶51

The report indicates that some portion of the land was

¶52

converted before the Act 28 of 2008. The petitioner was cultivating other agricultural crops. The extent of that land is not discernible from the impugned order as well as from the report. The LLMC

¶53

..5..

¶54

WP(C).No.19766 OF 2019(U)

¶55

appears to have not applied their mind properly. LLMC ought to have stated about the land where the agricultural activities have been carried out, and whether it was fit for paddy cultivation or not. This was not done. The report clearly indicates that from 2002 onwards, the pattern of activity is changed. It was much before Act 28 of 2008. It is the duty of the LLMC to refer such aspect which is required to take a decision. There appears to be a complete failure on the part of LLMC in adverting those aspects.

¶56

In such circumstances, it is appropriate to relegate the petitioner to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer. If the petitioner moves the RDO, the RDO, notwithstanding such report of LLMC, shall consider the matter afresh after adverting to the report of KSREC and after conducting an inspection.

¶57

Needful shall be done within a period of three months.

¶58

The petitioner shall move the RDO in Form 5 application within a period of three weeks. RDO shall take a decision untrammeled by any finding made by the LLMC.

¶59

WP(C).No.19766 OF 2019(U)

¶60

..6..

¶61

9. It is reported that the petitioner is in Tamil Nadu, and 80

¶62

years old. In that view of the matter, the counsel can move the

¶63

application on behalf of the petitioner.

¶64

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶67

JUDGE

¶68

¶69

WP(C).No.19766 OF 2019(U)

¶70

..7..

¶71

APPENDIX

¶72

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶73

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK.

¶74

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶75

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO.31206/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF K.S.R.E.C. DATED 20.02.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02.07.2015 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 04.06.2015 OF 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶76

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 10.05.2019 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Dr.Geevarghese George, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Geevarghese George, 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

Shajahan Vs Mr.Hamza Kurickel

Raveendhran, Vs Choornikkara Gramapanchayath

K. I. Varghese Vs Adeela Abdulla, I.A.S

K.K.Usman, Vs State of Kerala

Sanu S.O. Vs State of Kerala

Gulam Rasool Vs Kodumba Grama Panchayath