Quashed

Pandampadathil Granites Private Limited v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2021WP(C)/1334/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders refusing to remove land from the Land Data Bank, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider applications after gathering scientific data from KSREC.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P8 and P12 orders set aside; 2nd Respondent directed to consider applications P5 and P9 after gathering scientific data from KSREC within two months.

Pandampadathil Granites Private Limited Vs the… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021/12TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1334 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PANDAMPADATHIL GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED, PANDAMPADATHIL BUILDINGS, 10/203D, KOODALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 595, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUNIL P.JOSE.

¶8

BY ADVS. ROY CHACKO SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALA, PALA P.O.KOTTAYAM-686 575.

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE MEENACHIL, PALA, PIN-686 575.

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE BHARANANGANAM, BHARANANGANAM P.O.,KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 578.

¶14

5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, BHARANANGANAM, BHARANANGANNAM P.O.,KOTTAYAM-686 578.

¶15

BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SURYA BINOY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.1334/2021

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2021

¶21

The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P8 and P12 orders

¶22

and seeks a declaration that the property of the petitioner is not a Paddy Land as defined under Section 2(12) of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

¶23

The petitioner is a Company and owns 9.93 Ares

¶24

of land in resurvey No.419/9-1 in Block No.35 in Bharananganam Village. The petitioner would state that the land is included and shown as converted land having coconut trees, in the notified Data Bank.

¶25

The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application in Form-5 for removing the petitioner's land from the Data Bank and Ext.P5 application in Form-6 seeking to change the nature of the land in revenue records. It appears that the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) had earlier

¶26

WP(C) No.1334/2021

¶27

¶28

recommended not to permit the change of the nature of the land in the area. Consequently, the Agricultural Officer issued Ext.P11 letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer informing the latter that the Local Level Monitoring Committee has taken a decision not to exclude the land of the petitioner from Data Bank.

¶29

Based thereon, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued Ext.P12 communication to the petitioner informing the petitioner that if the land of the petitioner is removed from the Data Bank that will adversely affect water conservation and the ecology. The petitioner challenges Exts.P8 and P12.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶31

and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 5.

¶32

Going through the pleadings in the writ petition, it is seen that the Village Officer as per Ext.P10 report recommended that a decision on removing the property of

¶33

WP(C) No.1334/2021

¶34

¶35

the petitioner from the Land Data Bank should be taken only after gathering authentic data including a report of KSREC. Ext.P11 communication would show that the Local Level Monitoring Committee has taken certain factors which are not concerns of the LLMC under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 for declining the request of the petitioner. When the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules made thereunder provide for gathering of scientific data for deciding as to whether land should be removed from the Data Bank or whether to effect change of nature of any land in the revenue records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents ought to have considered scientific evidence, obtaining a report from the KSREC, before taking final decision on Form 5 and 6 applications submitted by the petitioner.

¶36

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Exts.P8 and P12 orders and directing the 2^nd

¶37

WP(C) No.1334/2021

¶38

¶39

respondent to consider Exts.P5 and P9 applications submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law after gathering scientific data from the KSREC. The petitioner shall make the requisite application for getting a report from KSREC, paying the requisite fee. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass orders on Exts.P5 and P9 within a period

¶40

of two months from the date of receipt of the report from the

¶41

KSREC.

¶42

Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd/04.08.2021

WP(C) No.1334/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1334/2021

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶48

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.9.2018 RELATING TO THE ABOVE 09.93 ARES.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE EXTRACT OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT RELATING TO THE ABOVE ITEM OF PROPERTY OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, BHARANANGANAM DATED 11.2.2019
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK RELATING TO THE SUBJECT LANDS
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 6 UNDER SECTION 27 A OF THE 2008 ACT DATED 1.11.2019 ALONG WITH THE PERFORMA PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 22.11.2019
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER SEEKING REPORT FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 16.3.2020
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.5.2020 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO 5 FILED ON 14.5.2020
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 19.6.2020
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 24.9.2020 RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ON 1.10.2020
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Pandampadathil Granites Private Limited v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandampadathil Granites Private Limited v. the 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

Gopinathan Palakkal Vs Aravind R.

Thalangara Mohammed Ashraf Vs Kasargode Municipality

Muhammed Bava Vs State of Kerala

Alphonsa Francis Vs the Local Level Monitaring Committee

Juby Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Adith Gokul Vs Registrar of Births and Deaths