Partly allowed

Jogy Kulangaravilayil Daniel v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2021WP(C)/11729/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge held that a rider in an order requiring compliance with a statutory amendment enacted after the date of application and the underlying judgment is unsustainable. The court set aside the impugned order and the subsequent reply, directing fresh orders based on the law applicable at the time of the application.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order and Ext.P5 reply letter set aside. District Collector directed to pass fresh orders within one month. Tahsildar directed to make necessary entries within two months.

Jogy Kulangaravilayil Daniel Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1943

¶4

WP(C) NO. 11729 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JOGY KULANGARAVILAYIL DANIEL AGED 46 YEARS S/O. E.T. DANIEL, PATMOS BHAVAN, NANNUKADAVU, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645, KERALA.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI. BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM SRI. ADARSH KUMAR SRI. K.M. ANEESH SRI. SHASHANK DEVAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, KERALA. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, COLLECTORATE ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 645, KERALA. 3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR - 691 523, KERALA. 4 THE THASILDHAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645, KERALA. 5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, COLLECTORATE ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645, KERALA.

¶10

WP(C).No.11729 OF 2021

¶11

¶12

6 THE CONVENOR, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645, KERALA.

¶13

SRI. P. S APPU – GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.11729 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order issued by the 2^nd respondent – District Collector. The main contention of the petitioner is that the order has been passed not inconsonance with the directions in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court.

¶19

This Court in Ext.P2 judgment directed the District Collector to pass orders on the application preferred by the petitioner for permission to use their properties for other purposes. Pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the District Collector by Ext.P3 order deleted the land from the Data Bank and permitted the land to be used for other purposes, but with a rider that the petitioner has to comply with Section 27A of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2018 and Rules, which is the amended provision which came into force with effect from 30.12.2017 after Ext.P2 judgment. According to the petitioner this is contrary to the directions in Ext.P2 judgment as well as the dictum laid down by this Court in Tahsildar V. Renjith George [2020 (2) KLT 13].

¶20

WP(C).No.11729 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The application of the petitioner for an order under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 was submitted on 11.05.2017 before 30.12.2017, ie., before the amendment to the Paddy Land and Wetland Act. Ext.P2 judgment was rendered on 28.09.2017. Therefore the rider in Ext.P3 that the petitioner has to comply with Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules cannot be sustained. To the said extent Ext.P3 is set aside.

¶23

Consequen tly, Ext.P5 is also set aside and the

¶24

District Collector is directed to pass fres h orders on the application of the petitioner dated 11.05.2017 in accordance with the dictum laid down by this Court in the judgment cited supra . This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of judgment. Based on the orders of the District Collector and Ext.P6 application, the Tahsildar (LR) has to make necessary entries in the BTR/Revenue Records, within a period of two months from the date of order of the District Collector. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ

¶25

WP(C).No.11729 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

petition with Exhibits and certified copy of the judgment before

¶28

the District Collector for compliance.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

SPR

¶34

WP(C).No.11729 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 02.11.2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.09.2017 IN W.P.C NO.31127/2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2019 PASSED UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF THE KLU ORDER, 1961. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.11.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 29.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT DATED 17.08.2021 WITH RESPECT TO EXHIBIT P6.

¶39

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

Jogy Kulangaravilayil Daniel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jogy Kulangaravilayil Daniel 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudharmini Vs District Retunring Officer

Rajeena K Vs the State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Rajan Vs Registrar of Marriages

Antoni Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Sreekandan Nair Vs Superintendent