Allowed

K.P.Annie v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC4 Nov 2020WP(C)/20013/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application for correcting a property entry in the draft data bank. A report from KSREC regarding the land's status at the Act's commencement was mandated. The petitioner was directed to bear associated fees.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the Ext.P4 application after obtaining a report from KSREC on the property's status at the commencement of the Act, within three months.

K.P.Annie Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.20013 OF 2020(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.P.ANNIE, AGED 68 YEARS D/O.POULOSE ANTONY, MADATHIL HOUSE, ANGAMALY DESOM, ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O., ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683573.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.JINISH PAUL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682001.

¶11

2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER CONVENER, LLMC, KRISHI BHAVAN, KADUNGALLOOR, MUPPATHADAM, ALANGAD VILLAGE, KADUNGALLOOR PANCHAYAT, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683110.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

GP K.J.MANURAJ

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(c).No.20013 of 2020

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

W.P.(C).No.20013 of 2020

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

I.A. No.1 of 2020 : Allowed.

¶21

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, she 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.P4 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 second respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Act in considering the request

¶22

W.P.(c).No.20013 of 2020

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 application.

¶25

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

¶26

3. In the light of the decision of this court in Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State 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. It is all the more so since the data bank is a draft one and the petitioner has applied for correction of the entry in the data bank in the form prescribed for submitting the application for correction of entry in notified data bank with all necessary details.

¶27

In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 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. Ordered accordingly.

¶28

W.P.(c).No.20013 of 2020

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

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. If Ext.P4 application is found defective, the defect shall be intimated to the petitioner by the second respondent immediately on production of a copy of this judgment, and the second respondent will be entitled to avail the time taken by the petitioner to cure the defects in the application also, for compliance of the directions contained in this judgment.

¶31

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶32

¶33

W.P.(c).No.20013 of 2020 : 5 :

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1964/1/2016 OF ALANGAD SRO.

¶37

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 6.8.12 ISSUED BY PRL. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM TO THE PREDECESSOR OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER FORWARDED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY 2ND RESPONDENT ON 5.2.19.

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28/9/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

K.P.Annie v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Annie v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Martin Thomas, Vs the District Collector

Sreenivasan Nair P Vs Perumbavoor Municipality

Muhammed Rafeeq, Vs Vengola Grama Panchayath

Hameed, Vs the State of Kerala

K. T. Eldhose, Vs State of Kerala

Subahan Vs Palakkad Municipality