Remanded

Nithin Prassannan,S/O Prassannan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Dec 2022WP(C)/10725/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners property was included in the Data Bank as non-agricultural land despite claims of rubber cultivation. The Court set aside the rejection order for failing to consider a pending report and relevant evidence. It directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application afresh within six weeks and consider the subsequent application for exclusion if the property is cleared.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Form No.5 application to be reconsidered afresh within six weeks considering KSRSEC report. If land excluded, Form No.6 application to be considered under the 2008 Act and Ru

Nithin Prassannan,S/O Prassannan Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 10725 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

NITHIN PRASSANNAN, S/O. PRASSANNAN AGED 31 YEARS THADATHIL HOUSE, MEKKOZHUR P. O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 689 678.

¶9

BY ADV UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶12

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 545.

¶13

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 523.

¶14

4 THAHASILDAR KONNI TALUK OFFICE KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 691.

¶15

5 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE MYLAPRA, KONNI PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 671.

¶16

6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE MYLAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, MYLAPRA - 689 671.

¶17

SRI. B.S SYAMANTHAK - GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.10725 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner is the owner in possession of

¶23

02.02 Ares of land in Re-Survey No.103/16 in Mylapra Village, Konni Taluk. According to the petitioner, the property was converted in the year 1990 and planted with rubber trees and the same has been noted as rubber plantation in Ext.P2 Data Bank published by the 6^th respondent. Since the property was erroneously included in the Data Bank, he preferred Ext.P3 application in Form No.5 and Ext.P4 application in Form No.6 before the authorities. Aggrieved by the delay in consideration of the said applications, the petitioner approached this Cou rt in W.P.(C) No.19051/2021 and by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the 3^rd respondentRevenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P3 in Form

¶24

WP(C).No.10725 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

No.5 and on the basis of the decision on Ext.P3 to consider Ext.P4 in Form No.6. The 3^rd respondent, by Ext.P7, rejected Ext.P3 application based on Exts.P9 and P10 reports of the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer. According to the petitioner, going by the said reports, the property has been planted with rubber trees for the la st 15 years . It is also the contention of the petitioner that though he made an application to obtain report from KSRSEC, without awaiting the report, the 3^rd respondent passed Ex.P7 order.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶28

The learned Government Pleader submits that, there is no specific entry in Ext.P2 that the petitioner's property is a rubber plantation and the petitioner is relying on the remarks made in Ext.P2 which is not conclusive as to the nature of the land.

¶29

WP(C).No.10725 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

Though the petitioner's application for

¶32

report from KSRSEC was allowed, the 3^rd respondent passed Ext.P7 order without awaiting the said report. It is also to be noted that there is no proper discussion in Ext.P7 with regard to Exts.P9 and P10 reports. On going through Ext.P7, I find that relevant materials have not been adverted to by the 3^rd respondent while passing the same. Therefore, Ext.P7 order requires a re-visit. For the said purpose, Exts.P7 and P8 are set aside. The 3^rd respondent shall consider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner in Form No.5 afresh after taking into consideration Exts.P9, P10 and KSRSEC report and the relevant rules and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If orders are passed excluding the property from the Data Bank, Ext.P4 application in

¶33

WP(C).No.10725 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

Form No.6 shall be taken up for consideration and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

¶37

directions.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶40

SPR

¶41

WP(C).No.10725 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY 05.01.2021	OF T .	HE TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY PUBLISHED	OF BY THE	THE FINAL DATA BANK 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY DATED 21.0	OF THE 1.2021.	APPLICATION IN FORM.5
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY DATED 09.0	OF THE 3.2021.	APPLICATION IN FORM.6
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY 15.9.2021	OF IN W.P[	THE JUDGMENT DATED C] NO.19051/2021.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY 16/8/2021 OF DD.	OF T ALONG	HE APPLICATION DATED WITH RECEIPT AND COPY
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD	OF THE RESPON	ORDER DATED 20.12.2021 DENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COP 29.01.2020	Y OF OF THE	THE MINUTES DATED 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OFFICER DA	OF THE TED 02.	REPORT OF THE VILLAGE 11.2021.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COP 05.11.2021	Y OF OF THE	THE REPORT DATED AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY THE ACTUAL	OF TH NATURE	E PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY GOOGLE EAR PROPERTY A	OF SCRE TH SHOW ND SURR	EN SHOT TAKEN FROM THE ING THE NATURE OF THE OUNDINGS.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD	OF THE RESPON	ORDER DATED 21.01.2022 DENT.

¶46

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

Nithin Prassannan,S/O Prassannan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithin Prassannan,S/O Prassannan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Latha B. Vs Secretary, Thazhakara Grama Panchayat

Santhosh a. R. Vs Parali Gramapanchayath

Rekha Lakshmi Vs State of Kerala

Prassannan T R, S/O Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Rejani Prassannan,W/O Prassannan Vs State of Kerala

Mini Pradeep, Vs Secretary, Muhamma Grama Panchayath