Partly allowed

T.P.Tomy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Nov 2021WP(C)/5895/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala set aside an order of the Local Level Monitoring Committee that rejected an application to reclassify land from paddy field to dry land. The court held the decision violated natural justice as it ignored documents, failed to verify facts, and denied the petitioners an opportunity of being heard, directing a fresh decision after a site inspection.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P6 order; directed Local Level Monitoring Committee to give notice, conduct site inspection, consider documents, and take a fresh decision within three months.

T.P.Tomy Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1943

¶6

WP(C) NO. 5895 OF 2015

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 T.P.TOMY,SON OF POULOSE. THALIYATH HOUSE, DOOR NO. 28/1406, K.P. VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHRA PO, PIN-682020

¶9

2 E.K. PREMACHANDRAN,AGED 58 YEARS SON OF RAMADAS MENON, NANDANAM, CLASSIC 2, CHOICE PARK, ELAMAKKARA PIN-682026 BY ADVS. SMT.K.P.SANTHI SMT.E.U.DHANYA SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN MUTHUKULAM SRI.RILGIN V.GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI - 682001

¶13

3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AND CONVENOR, LOCAL LEVEL MONOTORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIKKAKARA 682028

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI JACOB V SIMON

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) No.5895 of 2015

¶18

¶19

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶20

................................................................. W.P.(C) No.5895 of 2015

¶21

................................................................. Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2021

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, of which the 3^rd respondent is the convenor. The petitioners are owners, title holders in possession and enjoyment of 34.10 Ares of land comprised in resurvey No.534/6, 7, 9 & 11 of Block No.9 of Kakkanad Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. It is contended that they purchased the said property as per sale deed Nos.1065/11 and 1066/11 of SRO, Thrikkakara. It is further contended that there is no paddy cultivation in the land for the last 30 years and that the land is now lying as garden land with more than 30 years old coconut trees, bamboos and other trees. It is also the contention of the petitioners that there is no paddy cultivation in the adjacent properties also and that the neighbouring properties are also garden lands with coconut trees, mahagony, teak, etc. which are also more than 30 years old. The petitioners submitted Ext.P1 application dated 25.01.2014 before the 2^nd respondent with a prayer to reclassify the land as converted dry land in place of 'nilam' as entered in the basic tax register and also in the land tax receipt. In Ext.P2 data bank the properties in survey No.534/6, 7, 8, 9 & 11 are included as partially filled land. As no action was taken in the matter, the petitioners approached this Court filing

¶24

WP(C) No.5895 of 2015

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C) No.5123 of 2014 which was disposed of as per judgment dated 19.08.2014 directing the Local Level Monitoring Committee to finalise the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioners in terms of Rule 4(2) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). In obedience to the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment, petitioners submitted Ext.P4 application before the 3^rd respondent requesting to change the status of the land in the draft data bank. The Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam had conducted inspection of the property and issued Ext.P5 certificate showing that the land is already converted as dry land. However, without considering the documents submitted the petitioners and without any proper verification, the Local Level Monitoring Committee, Thrikkakara rejected Ext.P4 application and as per Ext.P6 letter dated 29.12.2014, the 3^rd respondent communicated the petitioners about the decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee.

¶27

It is aggrieved by Ext.P6 decision that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the abovesaid writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that none of the documents submitted by them were considered and that there was no verification regarding the actual lie of the land and further that, the decision was taken without even affording an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the petitioners contended that the decision contained in Ext.P6 is issued in

¶28

WP(C) No.5895 of 2015

¶29

¶30

gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶31

I have heard Smt.K.P.Santhi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri.Jacob V. Simon , the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The specific contention of the petitioners is that the land in question was converted long back and there are more than 30 years old coconut trees, bamboos and other trees in the properties. Ext.P5 report of the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam dated 03.08.2012 reads as follows:

¶33

“With reference to your application above, I have inspected the land extending to 34.10 Ares comprised in Resurvey Nos.534/6, 534/7, 534/9 respectively in Block No.7 of Kanayannoor Taluk in Kakkanad village at Ernakulam District on ground. The land in question is converted land filled with hard and solid waste. Enquiry and soil conditions reveals that conversion could not be made suitable for paddy cultivation since the soil condition has been totally changed years back. There is no paddy cultivation in the surrounding lands also. Hence, the above land is converted dry land on ground. This is the present status of the land at present.”

¶34

It is specifically contended in Ground F of the writ petition that no site inspection with notice to the petitioners was conducted nor any of the documents submitted by the petitioners was property considered. It is also contended that Ext.P6 order was issued without hearing the petitioners. On a perusal of Ext.P6 order, it is revealed that none of the abovesaid contentions raised by the petitioners was considered in a proper manner, especially Ext.P5 report of the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam which clearly finds that the land in question was

¶35

WP(C) No.5895 of 2015

¶36

¶37

converted as dry land years back and that there is no paddy cultivation in the surrounding lands also.

¶38

Even though a statement dated 06.08.2015 is filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, there is no specific answer to any of the contentions raised in the writ petition, especially to the contentions raised in Ground (F) of the writ petition that no site inspection with notice to the petitioners was conducted, no proper verification of the documents submitted by the petitioners and that the decision was taken without hearing them. Further, in Ext.P2 data bank also it is shown that the property is partially filled. The petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in Jessy Abraham v. Land

¶39

Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram (2021 (6) KHC 316) to contend the position that Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 4 of the Rules did not provide for inclusion of all lands shown in the revenue records as paddy land in the data bank and only cultivable paddy lands as on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 are liable to be included in the paddy lands in the data bank and merely for the reason that the lands are lying low and are waterlogged, the same cannot be included as paddy land in the data bank. Petitioners also rely on the judgments of this Court in the decisions reported in Mather

¶40

Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector, EKM and others (2020 (2) KHC 94) and Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KHC 540 ) , in support of their contentions.

¶41

WP(C) No.5895 of 2015

¶42

¶43

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that Ext.P6 order is issued without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners that the property has been converted long back and that there are trees in the property which are more than 30 years old. Further that, while issuing Ext.P6 order, the petitioners were also not heard. Such contentions raised by the petitioners are not controverted in the statement filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, I feel that the Local Level Monitoring Committee, Thrikkakara, of which the 3^rd respondent is the convenor, should reconsider the matter after conducting a site inspection with notice to the petitioners and after taking into consideration the documents produced and the decisions relied on by the petitioners. The 3^rd respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before taking a fresh decision in the matter. In view of the above, I set aside Ext.P6 order and direct the Local Level Monitoring Committee, Thrikkakara, of which the 3^rd respondent is the convenor, to take a fresh decision in the matter as directed above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

VIJU ABRAHAM Judge

¶47

cks

¶48

WP(C) No.5895 of 2015

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5895/2015

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶52

EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION DATED 25.1.2014 SUBMITTED TO 2ND RESPONDENT

¶53

EXHIBI P2:TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DETAILS PREPARED BY THE DATA BANK EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.8.2014 IN WPC NO.5123 OF 2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

¶54

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.9.2014 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶55

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 3.8.2012 OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM

¶56

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.12.2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶57

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶58

ANNEXURE R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK

T.P.Tomy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Tomy 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

Sajina Saseendran, Vs Joby.P.E

Roy Vs Jayamon

Thankamma Vs K.v.Vasudevan

Liudmyla Aleksieieva Vs Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Kozhikode

K. Primeson Vs State of Kerala

Vilasini Vs the State of Kerala