Disposed

Rubeena Beevi v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jan 2021WP(C)/1927/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the 6th respondent to consider the petitioner's application to exclude her land from the Draft Land Data Bank under the 2008 Act. The respondent must hear the petitioner and consider KSREC satellite reports within three months before deciding on the rejection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 6th respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application within three months, after hearing the petitioner and considering the KSREC satellite report.

Rubeena Beevi Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1927 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RUBEENA BEEVI

¶8

AGED 34 YEARS W/O. SAJEED M.C., KOTTAKKUZHI HOUSE, KATTACHIRA , PALLIKKAL P.O, BHARANICKAVU VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 503

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.G.SREEJITH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶13

ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, BESIDE ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA 688 001.

¶14

3 THE RDO,

¶15

CHENGANNUR, MAVELIKKARA, KOZHENCHERRY ROAD, SH 10, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA 689 121.

¶16

4 THE TAHSILDAR,

¶17

TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA-690 101

¶18

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICE, BHARANIKAVU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA-690 503

¶19

6 THE CONVENOR (AGRICULTURAL OFFICER), LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN, BHARANIKAVU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA-690 503

¶20

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P(C).No.1927 of 2021

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 application before the 6^th respondent seeking an exclusion of her land from the Draft Land Data Bank prepared for the purposes of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act, 2008 [hereinafter referred to as the “2008 Act”]. The limited prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the 6^th respondent to consider and pass orders on the same, expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶27

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the cases as also the submissions made across the bar, I deem it appropriate to dispose the Writ Petition with the following directions:

¶28

(I) The 6^th respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that if the proposal of the 6^th respondent is to reject the request of the petitioner, then it

¶29

W.P(C).No.1927 of 2021

¶30

¶31

shall also consider the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center [KSREC] based on satellite image studies of the land in question.

¶32

(ii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 6^th respondent, for further action.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶35

mns/25.01.2021

¶36

W.P(C).No.1927 of 2021

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.07.2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 24.08.2017 BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.08.2017. EXHIBIT P4 NIL. EXHIBIT P4 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING PRESENT NATURE OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P4 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING PRESENT NATURE OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P4 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING PRESENT NATURE OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY.

¶41

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

P.A TO JUDGE

Rubeena Beevi v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubeena Beevi 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

Mathew Makiel Vs the Tahasildar

Joseph C.P Vs the District Collector

Monisha Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Meeran Aka Meerakutty Vs the Secretary

Shajan K, Vs Andoorkonam Grama Panchayath

Sageer, Vs the State of Kerala