Allowed

Eby A.M v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC19 Jan 2021WP(C)/23975/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed an order rejecting an application to remove land from a data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, directing the officer to reconsider afresh after obtaining a report on the land's status as of the Act's commencement.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order quashed; First respondent directed to consider the application afresh after obtaining a report on the land's status and affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within four mont

Eby A.M Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.23975 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

EBY A.M AGED 42 YEARS S/O. MATHAI, ARANJANIYIL VEEDU, KANIMANGALAM, NENMARA P.O, PALAKKAD 678 508

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SMT.ANJANA G. SHRI.JOBIN JOSE P. SMT.MEENU THAMPI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAT, PALAKKAD 678 001

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NENMARA, NENMARA P.O, PALAKKAD 678 508 3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AND AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, NENMARA, KRISHI BHAVAN, NENMARA P.O, PALAKKAD 678 508

¶12

BY ADV.SRI.K.J. MANURAJ, GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C) No.23975 of 2020

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

Petitioner owns a land which is included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). The case of the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner is one reclaimed prior to the coming into force of the Act; that the same was lying as a dry land when the Act came into force and that the land of the petitioner, in the circumstances, ought not have been included in the data bank prepared under the Act. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application in Form No.5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules before the first respondent for appropriate orders for removing the land of the petitioner from the data bank. The said application has been rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 is under challenge in the writ petition.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶18

Ext.P5 order, which is impugned in the writ petition

¶19

reads thus:

¶20

" ചചററർതതലറകക , നനനതറവചലകലലജകബകലലതകക - 54 ,

¶21

ററസർവകലവനമർ 96/17 ൽഉൾനപട 0.0202 നഹകർഭറമച ഡതറതബതങചൽ നചനനന ഒഴചവതകച തരണനമനക ആവശകയനപടക ഡതറതബതങചനല ഉളടകങൾ ലഫതറന - 5 പകരകതരന തചരനതനനതചനനള ശകരറ . എബച . എ . എന . അരഞ തണചയചൽ വറടക , നനനതറ ( പച . ഒ ), പതലകതടക എനവർ അലപക സമർപചചചരചകനനന .

¶22

ടചഅലപക പകരതലദശചകതലനചരറകണ സമചതചയനനട പരചഗണനകകവചടനകയനന , ടചസ ലനഡതറതബതങചൽ നചനനനഒഴചവതലകണതതലണത / അലകലലയതഎനതക സനബനചചന റചലപതർടക സമർപചകനവതൻ നചർലദശചകനകയനനനചയകതന .

¶23

ടചഅലപക പകരതലദശചകതല നചരറകണ സമചതച അലപക വചശദമതയചപരചലശതധചചതതണകഎനനന , സ ല ലനഡതറതബതങചൽ നചനനനഒഴചവതലകണതചലക എനക LLMC റചലപതർടകനചയകതചടനനണനകനനനതറകകഷച ഓഫറസർ പരതമർശന (2) പകരകതരന റചലപതർടക . സമർപചചചടനണക

¶24

ലമൽസതഹചരകയതചൽ , റചലപതർടനകളനനഅനനബന സ ലപരചലശതധന ലരഖകളനന പരചലശതധചചതചലനന , LLMC നടതചയതചലനന ബനനപട ശനപതർശ നചയകതചടചലകല എനനള കകഷച ഓഫറസറനനട അടചസ , റചലപതർടചനന തനതചലനനചചററർതതലറകക നനനതറവചലകലലജകബകലലതകക - 54, ററസർവകലവനമർ 96 / 17 ൽ ഉൾനപട 0.0202 നഹകർഭറമചഡതറതബതങചൽ അലപക നചനനനഒഴചവതകതനനള നചരസചചകഇതചനതൽ ഉതരവതകനനന .”

¶25

A reading of the extracted order would indicate that the essential

¶26

reason for rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner is that the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Act has not recommended for favourable orders on the application.

¶27

Having regard to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, I am of the view that the first respondent, in a case of this nature, ought to have considered the question as to

¶28

whether the land of the petitioner is one reclaimed or converted after the coming into the force of the Act, independent of the views/stand of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. Admittedly, the first respondent has not considered the said question. Instead, the first respondent has relied on the views of the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Act to reject the application submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order, in the circumstances, is liable to be interfered with.

¶29

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P5 order is quashed and the first respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner referred to in Ext.P5 afresh, after calling for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre as to the lie of the land as on the date of coming into force of the Act, and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. This shall be done within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall bear the costs for obtaining the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, as and when called upon to do so.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7-08-2018 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7-09-2018 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4-10-2018 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6-07-2019 ALONG WITH THE MINUTES OF THE LLMC MEETING HELD ON 2-72019 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16-1-2020

¶37

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Eby A.M v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eby A.M v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Thanooj P.N. Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

The Secretary Vs Govindankutty.v

Vincent Varghese Vs Arjun Pandyan I.A.S

Don Paul Vs State of Kerala

K.H.Abdul Majeed Vs the Kalamassery Municipality

S.N.D.P. Yogam Vs Sri.Krishnakumar