Dismissed

Aliyamma Thomas, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC19 Oct 2020WP(C)/20219/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Local Level Monitoring Committee's refusal to recommend a paddy land reclamation application. The petitioner purchased the land after the 2008 Act commenced, precluding entitlement to residential construction benefits under statutory precedents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs to the petitioner.

Aliyamma 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 27TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.20219 OF 2020(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ALIYAMMA THOMAS, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. LATE P.K. THOMAS, PUTHENKATTUNGALPLAMPARAMBIL, CHENNANKARI WEST P.O. KAINAKARI VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TLAUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.

¶11

2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, NEDUMUDI, ALAPPUZHA 688 503.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAINAKARY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA 688 501.

¶13

4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE NEDUMUDI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, NEDUMUDI, ALAPPUZHA 688 503.

¶14

PRIYA SHANAVAS GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.20219 OF 2020(B)

¶17

..2..

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 19th day of October 2020

¶20

This writ petition is filed challenging the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee not to recommend the application to the District Level Authorisation Committee in the light of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.3466/2017. This was for the reason that the petitioner purchased the property only in the year 2018.

¶21

This Court in Sudheesh v. State of Kerala [ 2020 (5) KLT

¶22

662] and in Thankachan K.S. v. District Collector, Alappuzha and others [ 2017 (3) KLT 35 ] had taken the view that the purchaser of a paddy land after the Act 28 of 2008 came into force is not entitled to seek the benefits of Sec.9 of the Act for reclamation of the paddy land for the purpose of constructing a residential building.

¶23

In the light of fact the that the issue is covered against the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

¶28

WP(C).No.20219 OF 2020(B)

¶29

..3..

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAN TAX RECEIPT DATED 01/06/2018 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KAINAKARI.

¶33

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH PREPARED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KAINAKARI. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18/01/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 16/01/2019 SWORN BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10/12/2018 ISSUED BY SECRETARY OF PADASEKHARA COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 01/02/2019 PREPARED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11/12/2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/12/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/01/2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶37

WP(C).No.20219 OF 2020(B)

¶38

..4..

¶39

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/01/2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶41

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/10/2019 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HONBLE COURT REPORTED IN 2019 (4) KLT 540 (YOUSUF CHALIL VS. STATE OF KERALA).

Aliyamma Thomas, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aliyamma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shadiya Vs Vazhakkad Grama Panchayath

P.G.Prabhavathi, Vs the Sub Collector

Ayana Charitable Trust Vs State of Kerala

Andrew Eapen Titus Vs State of Kerala

Baiju A.B. Vs the Chittattukara Grama Panchayath

G.Sujana Bai Vs the Secretary to Government