Allowed

Rejani Prassannan,W/O Prassannan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Dec 2022WP(C)/10801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order excluding her land from the Data Bank. Court set aside the order for not awaiting KSRSEC report and for insufficient discussion of evidence, directing fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 set aside; Ex.P3 application to be reconsidered afresh by Revenue Divisional Officer within six weeks while considering KSRSEC report and relevant rules.

Rejani Prassannan,W/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, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10801 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

REJANI PRASSANNAN, W/O. PRASSANNAN AGED 51 YEARS 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, PIN – 689 545.

¶11

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

¶12

4 THAHASILDAR KONNI TALUK OFFICE KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 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.10801 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is the owner in possession of

¶21

9.55 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, she 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.19078/2021 and by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P3 in Form No.5 and on the basis of the decision on Ext.P3 to

¶22

WP(C).No.10801 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

consider Ext.P4 in Form No.6. The 3^rd respondent,

¶25

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 she made an application to obtain report from KSRSEC, without awaiting the report, the 3^rd respondent passed Ex.P7 order.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

and the learned Government Pleader.

¶28

The learned Government Pleader submits

¶29

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.

¶30

Though the petitioner's application for

¶31

WP(C).No.10801 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

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,

¶34

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 a nd 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

¶35

WP(C).No.10801 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

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.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶41

SPR

¶42

WP(C).No.10801 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶46

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE 05.01	COPY .2021.	OF T	HE TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PUBLI	COPY SHED B	OF Y THE	THE FINAL DATA BANK 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE DATED	COPY 21.01	OF THE .2021.	APPLICATION IN FORM.5
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE DATED	COPY 09.03	OF THE .2021.	APPLICATION IN FORM.6
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE 15.09	COPY .2021	OF IN W.P	THE JUDGMENT DATED [C] NO.19078/2021.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE 16/08 OF DD	COPY /2021 .	OF T ALONG	HE APPLICATION DATED WITH RECEIPT AND COPY
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE OF TH	COPY E 3RD	OF THE RESPON	ORDER DATED 20.12.2021 DENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE 29.01	COPY .2020	OF OF THE	THE MINUTES DATED 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE OFFIC	COPY ER DAT	OF THE ED 02.	REPORT OF THE VILLAGE 11.2021.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE OF TH	COPY O E AGRI	F THE CULTUR	REPORT DATED 05.11.2021 AL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE ACTUA	COPY O L NATU	F THE RE OF	PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE	COPY	OF SCRE	EN SHOT TAKEN FROM THE
	GOOGL PROPE	E EAR RTY AN	TH SHOW D SURR	ING THE NATURE OF THE OUNDINGS.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE OF TH	COPY E 3RD	OF THE RESPON	ORDER DATED 21.01.2022 DENT.

¶47

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

Rejani Prassannan,W/O Prassannan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rejani Prassannan,W/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

Nithin Prassannan,S/O Prassannan Vs State of Kerala

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

Mini Pradeep, Vs Secretary, Muhamma Grama Panchayath