Dismissed

K.v.Vasumathy v. the District Collector

Kerala HC10 Nov 2020WP(C)/4917/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition where petitioners challenged a notice issued by the District Collector based on a third-party complaint. The Court held that the pendency of an application for data bank correction before the Local Level Monitoring Committee is not a valid ground to sustain proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, directing the petitioners to defe

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Ext.P7 notice was dismissed. The petitioners were directed to defend proceedings by raising appropriate contentions.

K.v.Vasumathy 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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C)No.4917 OF 2020(L)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 K.V.VASUMATHY, W/O.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT “SAKUNTHALA”, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASSENA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

2 P.S.SREEJA, W/O.SADANANDAN, RESIDING AT “SAKUNTHALA”, OZHUVUPARA, PALLASSENA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶12

2 THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678101.

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLASSENA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678505.

¶14

4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶15

5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PALLASSENA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678505.

¶16

6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, (CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008), REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,

¶17

W.P.(C) No.4917 OF 2020(L)

¶18

¶19

KRISHI BHAVAN, PALLASSENA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678505.

¶20

7 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶21

8 MR.MOHANAN, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, NEDUVELIKULAM, PALLASSENA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678505.

¶22

R1-R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R8 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) R8 BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY- SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

W.P.(C) No.4917 OF 2020(L)

¶27

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioners, who are stated to be owners in possession of 2.13 ares of property is Re.Sy. No.370/2 of Pallassena Village in Chittur Taluk covered by docume nt No.3388 of 2008 of th e Sub Registrar Office, Kollengode and Ext.P1 Basic Tax Receipt dated 05.04.2018, issued by the Village Officer, Pallassen a, have fil ed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the 1^st respondent from proceeding with the complaint filed by the 8^th respondent, referred to in Ext.P7 notice dated 06.02.2020, ignoring the pendency of the action being taken by respondents 6 and 7 on the strength of the dire ctions contained in Ext.P5 judgment of this Court dated 03.12.2019 in W.P.(c) No.32799 of 2019.

¶30

2 . On 20.02.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 6. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 7^th respondent. Notice by speed post was ordered to the 8^th respondent. O n 20.02.2020, this Court granted an interim order staying further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 notice for a period of one week a nd made it clear that the petitioners shall not carry out any construction till the disposal of the writ petition. The said

¶31

interim order, which was extended from time to time, is

¶32

W.P.(C) No.4917 OF 2020(L)

¶33

¶34

still in force.

¶35

On 06.10.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions as to what transpired after Ext.P5 judgment of this Court dated 03.12.2019 in W.P.(c) No.32799 of 2019.

¶36

On 21.10.2020, along with a memo filed by the learned

¶37

Senior Government Pleader, a copy of the report of the 5^th respondent Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Pallassena, is placed on record, enclosing therewith the report of the Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, dated 26.12.2019, addressed to the Agricultural Officer. The said report is one in relation to the proceedings pending before the 6^th respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) on Ext.P3 application made by the petitioners, invoking the provisions under sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules for correction of data bank. That application was directed to be considered by this Court in Ext.P5 judgm ent dated 03.12.2019 in W.P.(c) No.32799 of 2019 . The report of the 5^th respondent Agricultural Officer placed on record along with the memo filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader reads thus:

¶38

“Smt. K.V. Vasumathi filed a W.P.(C)No.34788/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for the exclusion of an area

¶39

W.P.(C) No.4917 OF 2020(L)

¶40

¶41

of 0.0213 ha in block No.4, survey No.370/2 in Pallassana Village, from the data bank of Pallassana Grama panchayath. According to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, LLMC (Local Level Monitoring Committee) conducted a physical verification on 26/04/2019 and there after a meeting conducted and taken a decision that above said property is not to be removed from the data bank. This LLMC decision was informed to Smt. K.V. Vasumathi on 07/05/2019.

¶42

Smt. K.V. Vasumathi again filed a W.P.(C)No.32799/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala on W.P.(C)No.32799/2019 and based on the KSREC report, LLMC again visited the plot and thereafter conducted a meeting on 28/01/2020. The LLMC taken a decision that the above said property is not to be removed from the data bank because; if the land conversion is allowed it will affect the ecosystem and natural flow of water. This LLMC decision was informed to Smt. K.V. Vasumathi on 02/03/2020.”

¶43

As can be seen from the report of the 5^th respondent

¶44

Agriculture Officer, based on the report of the Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, the 6^th respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee has already taken a decision in its meeting held on 28.01.2020, whereby the request made by the petitioners in their application seeking correction of data bank stands rejected on the ground that the property is not liable to be removed from the data bank. The 6^th respondent found that, if

¶45

W.P.(C) No.4917 OF 2020(L)

¶46

¶47

conversion is allowed, it will affect the ecosystem and natural flow of water. As per the report of the 5^th respondent, the decision of

¶48

the Local Level Monitoring Committee was informed to the 1^st petitioner on 02.03.2020.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1^st petitioner is yet to be issued with a copy of that decision. It is for the 5^th respondent Agriculture Officer to ensure that a copy of the decision taken by the 6^th respondent is communicated to the 1^st petitioner, within a period of two weeks from this date, if not already communicated.

¶50

As far as the challenge made in this writ petition against Ext.P7 notice is concerned, it is one issued by the District Collector, based on a complaint made by the 8^th respondent.

¶51

Section 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act reads thus;

¶52

"12. Appointment of Authorised Officers and their Powers - (1) The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such officers of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer as authorised officers and may determine the area of jurisdiction within which they shall exercise their powers under this Act.

¶53

(2) The Authorised Officer may, for the purpose of inspecting whether any of the provisions of this Act have been violated, or to prevent the commission of any of the offences under this Act-

¶54

(a) enter any premises or any place connected therewith with such

¶55

W.P.(C) No.4917 OF 2020(L)

¶56

¶57

preparation as he thinks necessary for the inspection or investigation into the alleged offence under this Act;

¶58

(b) require any person to stop any act in contravention of Section 3 or Section 11;

¶59

(c) seize any vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or any implements used or purported to be used in contravention of the provisions of this Act or seize any clay, sand, earth, etc. used for filling of the paddy land or wetland or any clay, sand, earth etc. removed from the paddy land or wetland in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any brick or tile made of all or any of them and send a report to the Collector for initiating proceedings for their confiscation;

¶60

(d) require any person to furnish such information as he may consider necessary;

¶61

(e) take photographs, make inventories or do other things necessary for collecting evidence regarding the commission of the offence and send a report to the Court of competent jurisdiction in order to prosecute the accused.

¶62

(3) Any person required to produce any document or thing or to give any information to an authorised officer under this section shall be legally bound to do so within the meaning of Section 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860).

¶63

(4) Every authorised officer appointed under this Section shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act 45 of 1860).

¶64

(5) If an officer authorised under sub-section (1), fails to take action on the report received by him regarding the violation of the Act, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under Section 23."

¶65

As per clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the

¶66

Act, the authorised officer has to take necessary steps for collecting evidence regarding the commission of the offence and

¶67

send a report to the Court of competent jurisdiction in order to

¶68

W.P.(C) No.4917 OF 2020(L)

¶69

¶70

prosecute the accused. As per sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act, if an officer authorised under sub-section (1) fails to take action on the report received by him regarding the violation of the Act, he shall be deemed to have committed the offence punishable under Section 23. Therefore, the pendency of Ext. P3 application made by the petitioners before the 6^th respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee, for correction of data bank, invoking subrule (6) of Rule 4 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, is not a valid ground for keeping in abeyance the proceedings proposed in Ext. P7 notice. It is for the petitioners to defend that proceedings by raising appropriate contentions.

¶71

In such circumstances, the challenge made in this writ petition against Ext.P7 notice fails and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to challenge the decision taken by the 6^th respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee in appropriate proceedings.

¶72

No order as to costs.

¶73

ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶74

JUDGE

¶75

MIN

¶76

W.P.(C) No.4917 OF 2020(L)

¶77

¶78

APPENDIX

¶79

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶80

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 05.04.2018 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLASSENA VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.02.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.09.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.(C) NO.32799/2019 DATED 03.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.12.2019 SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 17.02.2020 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS AND 3 OTHERS.

K.v.Vasumathy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Vasumathy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar.M.R Vs N.Ravikumar

Sreekuttan C.S. Vs Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)

P.Sundaran Vs State of Kerala

The Administrator Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

The Chief Executive Trustee, Lissie Medical and Educational Institutions Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Prime College of Pharmacy Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences