In review of a judgment quashing orders rejecting land reclamation under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Act, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding it cannot correct factual errors based on new evidence or assumptions not raised earlier regarding ecological impact.
The review petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA,
1943
RP NO. 504 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19770/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1, 3 AND 4 IN WP(C):
1 THE CONVENOR/AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KADAMAKKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KADAMAKKUDY, PIZHALA P.O., PIN-682027.
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, PIN-682001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030
BY SMT.B.VINITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C) :
1 JAIMOL SAJU, W/O.JOSEPH SAJU, AGED 47 YEARS, POTHADI HOUSE, VADUTHALA, CHERANELLOORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI-682023.
2 KADAMAKKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAMAKKUDY, PIZHALA P.O., PIN-682027
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.504 of 2021 IN
W.P.(C)No.19770 of 2018
..2..
R.P.No.504 of 2021
in
W.P.(C)No.19770 of 2018
O R D E R
Respondents 1, 3 and 4 in the writ petition have come up in this petition seeking review of the judgment in the writ petition. The parties and documents are referred to in this order, as they appear in the writ petition.
..3..
W.P.(C)No.19770 of 2018
R.P.No.504 of 2021 IN
application under Section 9(1) of the Act before the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee under the Act for permission to reclaim a portion of her land referred to above viz, 10 cents for the said purpose. The application was forwarded by the Local Level Monitoring Committee with their remarks to the District Level Authorised Committee, the competent authority for taking a decision on the application, and the District Level Authorised Committee rejected the application in terms of Ext.P5 order. The petitioner challenged Ext.P5 order in appeal before the District Collector under subsection (6) of Section 9 of the Act. The District Collector affirmed Ext.P5 order as per Ext.P6 order. Exts.P5 and P6 orders were under challenge in the writ petition.
..4..
W.P.(C)No.19770 of 2018
R.P.No.504 of 2021 IN
affect the paddy cultivation and prawn farming in the adjoining paddy lands. Another reason stated in Ext.P5 order for turning down the request of the petitioner was that the petitioner has another land suitable for putting up a residential building. The District Collector has reiterated the aforesaid reasons in Ext.P6 order while affirming Ext.P5 order.
R.P.No.504 of 2021 IN
..5..
W.P.(C)No.19770 of 2018
Level Authorised Committee to grant the permission sought for by the petitioner, in terms of the judgment sought to be reviewed in this proceedings.
..6..
W.P.(C)No.19770 of 2018
R.P.No.504 of 2021 IN
therefore obliged to ensure that the reclamation of the land of the petitioner would not affect the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy lands adversely, while setting aside the decision of the District Level Authorised Committee. It was argued that insofar as this Court has not ensured that the reclamation of the land of the petitioner would not affect the ecological condition and the cultivation of the adjoining paddy lands adversely, the judgment is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record.
..7..
W.P.(C)No.19770 of 2018
R.P.No.504 of 2021 IN
is one abutting a public road on one side, it cannot be said that the reclamation of 10 cents out of the same adjoining the public road would not affect adversely the paddy cultivation in the adjoining paddy lands. Now, the main contention raised in the review petition is that the finding aforesaid is incorrect, that too based, on a few photographs produced in the review petition. I am afraid, the review jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked on the ground that a finding in the judgment on a question of fact is incorrect, unless it is shown that the same is erroneous having been rendered ignoring or without taking note of any materials suggesting the contrary which are part of records. That apart, even in the review petition, it is not demonstrated as to how the paddy cultivation in the adjoining paddy lands would be adversely affected, if the petitioner reclaims 10 cents out of almost 40 cents of land owned by her which is abutting a public road on one side and a bund on the other side.
..8..
W.P.(C)No.19770 of 2018
R.P.No.504 of 2021 IN
..9..
W.P.(C)No.19770 of 2018
R.P.No.504 of 2021 IN
review the judgment on a mere statement that the ecological condition of the land would be affected adversely. A mere statement that the ecological condition of the land would be affected adversely was not sufficient even to support the impugned orders in the writ petition, had such a stand was taken in the writ petition. Needless to say, the contention aforesaid is without any substance.
In the said view the matter, I do not find any merit in the review petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
rkj
R.P.No.504 of 2021 IN W.P.(C)No.19770 of 2018
..10..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :-
ANNEXURE - 1 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY ANNEXURE - 2 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ADJACENT PADDY FIELDS WITH PADDY CULTIVATION
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petitioners can challenge the factual finding regarding the surroundings of the petitioner's land based on new photographs.
Whether the omission to consider 'ecological condition' in the reviewed judgment vitiates the order given the absence of such finding in impugned orders.
Whether the requirements for granting permission under Section 9(1) were met by the petitioner.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Convenor/Agricultural Officer, Local Level Monitoring Committee, Kadamakkudy Grama Panchayat
Revenue Divisional Officer
The District Collector, Ernakulam
Jaimol Saju
Kadamakkudy Grama Panchayat
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
