Disposed

K.Gopalakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Aug 2020WP(C)/8215/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against land classification under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the revision petition within three months considering new reports excluding the property from the data bank.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the revision petition and pass orders within three months based on the new reports and Committee opinion.

K.Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.8215 OF 2017(B)

¶6

WRIT PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶8

AGED 54, S/O KRISHNA PILLAI,AIKKARA, MANAPPALLY NORTH PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 T.T.JALAJA W/O K. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,AIKKARA, MANAPPALLY NORTH PO,KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)

¶12

SRI.A.R.DILEEP

¶13

SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001.

¶16

2 AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER

¶17

OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001.

¶18

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶19

KOLLAM. 691001.

¶20

4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM.691001.

¶21

5 TAHSILDAR

¶22

TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.690518.

¶23

6 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, PAVUMBA-690574.

¶24

7 PRINCIPAL AGIRCULTURAL OFFICER KOLLAM.691001.

¶25

WP(C).No.8215 OF 2017(B)

¶26

¶27

8 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE THAZHAVA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PAVUMBA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690574.

¶28

R1-R8 BY SRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, SPL.GOVT. PLEADER

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

WP(C).No.8215 OF 2017(B)

¶31

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioners, who are stated to be the joint owners in possession of 4.05 Ares of property in Survey No.406/19 and 6.85 Ares in Survey No.406/19-2 in Block No.12 of Pavumba Village in Karunagappally Taluk covered by Sale Deed No.824/2009 of the Sub Registrar Office, Ochira, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that

¶34

the aforesaid properties do not come within the ambit of the provisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 09.07.2009 issued by the 4^th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, invoking his powers under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 whereby the petitioners are directed to restore the said land to its original position. The further reliefs sought for are a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent to change the description of land of the petitioners in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) as dry land; a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2 revision petition within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶35

WP(C).No.8215 OF 2017(B)

¶36

¶37

On 10.03.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 7. Notice by speed post was ordered to the 8^th respondent. While listing the matter after one month for the counter affidavit of the respondents, this Court passed the following order:

¶38

In the meanwhile, the 8^th respondent shall file a report with regard to the nature and lie of the property in question as on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, as well as the present state. The petitioner shall, within one week from today, intimate the 8^th respondent as regards the extent of property, survey number and other details for the purpose of identifying the property in question. The report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) should indicate whether or not, on the basis of the enquiry conducted by it, the LLMC is of the opinion that the land in question is to be included in the Land Data Bank as paddy land or wet land.

¶39

On 29.05.2020, when this writ petition came up for

¶40

consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader sought adjournment to get instructions as to what transpired after the order of this Court dated 10.03.2017. It was ordered that, if the 8^th respondent has already prepared a report, the same shall be placed on record

¶41

WP(C).No.8215 OF 2017(B)

¶42

¶43

before the next posting date. On 14.07.2020, it was submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the report of the Agricultural Officer dated 15.06.2020 and that of the Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center shall be placed on record, along with a memo.

¶44

Along with the memo filed by the learned Special Government Pleader dated 14.07.2020, the statement of the 8^th respondent and also the report of the Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center are placed on record. As per that report, on joint verification, it was found that the land in question was with mixed vegetation/trees from 2003 onwards and on that basis it was opined by the 8^th respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) that the property in question has to

¶45

be excluded from the data bank. That process is now pending consideration.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶47

Ext.P1 order dated 09.07.2009 is one issued by the 4^th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, in exercise of his powers under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

¶48

WP(C).No.8215 OF 2017(B)

¶49

¶50

Wetland Act, 2008, whereby the petitioners were directed to restore that property, which is included in the data bank as paddy land, to its original position. Now, as evident from the materials placed on record along with the memo filed by the learned Special Government Pleader, on joint verification it was found that the

¶51

land in question was with mixed vegetation/trees from 2003 onwards and on that the basis, the 8^th respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee has opined that the property has to be excluded from the data bank. That process has to be undertaken, in accordance with the provisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and the Rules made thereunder.

¶52

Ext.P2 revision petition filed by the petitioners against Ext.P1 order of the 4^th respondent is pending consideration before the 2^nd respondent Agriculture Production Commissioner, which is one filed under Section 28 of the aforesaid Act.

¶53

The learned Special Government Pleader would submit

¶54

that the 2^nd respondent Appellate Authority shall consider Ext.P2 revision petition and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law.

¶55

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing

¶56

WP(C).No.8215 OF 2017(B)

¶57

¶58

the 2^nd respondent revisional authority to consider Ext.P2 revision petition filed by the petitioners against Ext.P1 order and take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law, taking into consideration the report of the Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center, which is placed on record along with the memo filed by the learned Special Government Pleader dated 14.07.2020, with notice to the petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition. Thereafter, based on the decision to be taken by the 8^th respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee, the petitioners shall approach the competent authority for change of description of land in the BTR, which shall be considered by that authority, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.8215 OF 2017(B)

¶64

¶65

APPENDIX

¶66

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶67

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A.4360/09 DATED 9.7.2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶68

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 18.11.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶69

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.TB(5) 8810/14 DATED 31.7.2014 FROM 8TH RESPONDENT TO UNDER SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE (NCA) DEPARTMENT.

¶70

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAND. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.D1.14027/07 DATED 18.11.2008 OF 5TH RESPONDENT.

K.Gopalakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Gopalakrishna Pillai 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saju Jacob Vs State of Kerala

T.T. Mathai Vs the Environmental Engineer

Kamalakshi L Vs the State of Kerala

Babu Mani @ Panyullathil Babu Vs the District Collector

Oriental Rocks Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Soman C.G. Vs the Secretary, Kozhencherry Grama Panchayat