Partly allowed

Prassannan T R, S/O Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Dec 2022WP(C)/10734/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning land classification, the High Court of Kerala set aside an order excluding land from the Data Bank due to procedural lapses. The court directed the third respondent to re-examine applications pending on reports before taking a view.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P7 and P8 orders set aside; direction to 3rd respondent to reconsider applications afresh considering specific reports within six weeks.

Prassannan T R, S/O Raveendran 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, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10734 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

PRASSANNAN T. R, S/O. RAVEENDRAN THADATHIL HOUSE, MEKKOZHUR P. O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT – 689 678 THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER REJANI PRASSANNAN, W/O. PRASSANNAN THADATHIL HOUSE, MEKKOZHUR P. O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 689 678.

¶7

BY ADV UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 545.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

SRI. B.S SYAMANTHAK - GP

¶16

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

¶17

WP(C).No.10734 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8.59 Ares of land in Re-Survey No.103/15 and 8.75 Ares in Re-Survey No.103/14 (Total 17.34 Ares) 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 Court in W.P.(C) No.19101/2021 and by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the 3^rd respondentRevenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P3 in Form

¶21

WP(C).No.10734 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

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 last 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.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

WP(C).No.10734 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

The learned Government Pleader also relies on Ext.R3(a) erratum notification.

¶29

The petitioner has produced the report of the KSRSEC as Ext.P14 along with the reply affidavit.

¶30

Though the petitioner's application for 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 P14

¶31

WP(C).No.10734 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

reports 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 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.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶37

SPR

¶38

WP(C).No.10734 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶42

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE 05.01	COPY .2021.	O	F THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PUBLI	COPY SHED B	Y	OF THE FINAL DATA BANK THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE DATED	COPY 21.01	OF .2	THE APPLICATION IN FORM.5 021.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE DATED	COPY 09.03	OF .2	THE APPLICATION IN FORM.6 021.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE 15.09	COP .2021	Y IN	OF THE JUDGMENT DATED W.P[C] NO.19101/2021.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE 16/8/ DD.	COPY 2021	ALO	OF THE APPLICATION DATED NG WITH RECEIPT AND COPY OF
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE OF TH	COPY E 3RD	OF RE	THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2021 SPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE OF TH	COPY E 6TH	OF RE	THE MINUTES DATED 29.01.2020 SPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE OFFIC	COPY ER DAT	OF ED	THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE 02.11.2021.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE OF TH	COPY E AGRI	OF CU	THE REPORT DATED 05.11.2021 LTURAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE ACTUA	COPY L NATU	OF RE	THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE GOOGL PROPE	COPY E EAR RTY AN	OF TH D	SCREEN SHOT TAKEN FROM THE SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE SURROUNDINGS.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE OF TH	COPY E 3RD	OF RE	THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2022 SPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE OF KS MYLAP	COPY RSEC RA.	OF TO	THE REPORT DATED 14.09.2022 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,

¶43

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶44

EXHIBIT R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION(2233 M3-06/2021 DATED 26-042021)

Prassannan T R, S/O Raveendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prassannan T R, S/O Raveendran 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

Nithin Prassannan,S/O Prassannan Vs State of Kerala

Rejani Prassannan,W/O Prassannan Vs State of Kerala

Mini Pradeep, Vs Secretary, Muhamma Grama Panchayath