Partly allowed

Edacholi Manatt Shubhanghi v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC15 Jul 2022WP(C)/16863/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside the Land Revenue Commissioner's order remanding a permit application, directing reconsideration in accordance with a prior judgment. The Court also granted a provisional building number pending final approval.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P12 set aside; Land Revenue Commissioner directed to reconsider within one month; Grama Panchayath directed to issue provisional building number.

Edacholi Manatt Shubhanghi Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 10373 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

EDACHOLI MANATT SHUBHANGHI,
AGED 61 YEARS
D/O. PARVATHY, MUKUND NIVAS, PONNIYAM WEST POST,
THALASSERY-670 641, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADVS.
C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
P.T.SHEELA

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 KADIRUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADIRUR P.O, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 642, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

2THE SECRETARY,
KADIRUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADIRUR
P.O,THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 642.
BY ADVS.
BINDUMOL JOSEPH
VINODKUMAR CHAMBALON

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).16863/2017,
22008/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

-2-

¶14

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶16

PRESENT

¶17

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶18

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 16863 OF 2017

¶19

PETITIONER/S:

¶20

EDACHOLI MANATT SHUBHANGHI
AGED 56 YEARS
AGED 56 YEARS, D/O. PARVATHY, MUKUND NIVAS,
PONNIYAM WEST POST, THALASSERY, KANNUR
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
SMT.MINI.V.A.

¶21

RESPONDENT/S:

¶22

1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶23

2 THE SUB COLLECTOR

¶24

THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.22008

¶25

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KATHIRUR VILLAGE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶26

4 MURIKOLI MANOJKUMAR

¶27

S/O. ACHUTHAN, DEVANANDANAM, TEMPLE GATE P.O., THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, VAYALAM DESOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶28

5 CHETTIYANKANDI RADHIKA

¶29

D/O. NARAYANAN, DEVANANDANM, TEMPLE GATE P.O., THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, VAYALAM DESOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶30

-3-

¶31

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶32

6ADDL. R6 RAGHAVAN.P.K,
AGED 67 YEARS
SHIBU NIVAS, 3RD MILE, PONNIYAM WEST P.O,
THALASSERY, KANNUR- 670641.
ADDITIONAL R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
15.07.2022 IN I.A. NO. 1/2019.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.SHAKTHI PRAKASH
V.A.VINOD
SHRI.RAJESH KUMAR P.V.
SMT.M.V.ASHA BINDU

¶33

OTHER PRESENT:

¶34

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).10373/2022 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶36

-4-

¶37

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶41

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 22008 OF 2017

¶42

PETITIONER/S:

¶43

MURIKOLI MANOJ KUMAR
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. ACHUTHAN, AGED 47 YEARS, AYURVEDA
THERAPIST,RESIDING AT DEVANANDANAM, P.O. TEMPLE
GATE,THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 102.
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.V.ASHA BINDU
SRI.SHAKTHI PRAKASH

¶44

RESPONDENT/S:

¶45

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,AGRICULTURE (NCA) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶46

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 101.

¶47

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KADIRUR VILLAGE,THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 642.

¶48

4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHIBHAVAN, CONVENOR OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,(KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT)KADIRUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KADIRUR P.O., THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 642.

¶49

-5-

¶50

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶51

5 THE SECRETARY KADIRUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KADIRUR P.O., THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 642.

¶52

6 EDACHOLI MANATT SHUBHANGI AGED 56 YEARS D/O. PARVATHI, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUKUND NIVAS,PONNIAM WEST P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICTPIN - 670 641.

¶53

7 N. VIJOY AGED 35 YEARS S/O. GANGADHARAN, AGED 35 YEARS,DESIGN ENGINEER, RESIDING AT E.P. 37/434, VAISHNAVAM,ERANHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PONNANI WEST P.O., THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 641.

¶54

8KEERTHI PRABHAKARAN
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O. N. VIJOY, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT E.P.
37/434,VAISHNAVAM, ERANHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
PONNANI WEST P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670 641.
BY ADV SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶55

OTHER PRESENT:

¶56

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶57

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).10373/2022 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶58

-6-

¶59

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶60

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶61

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶62

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2022

¶63

JUDGMENT

¶64

These three writ petitions are connected and therefore, I

¶65

am disposing of these three writ petitions by a common judgment. I will narrate the facts in WP(C) No.16863 of 2017.

¶66

The petitioner, a widow, is aggrieved by Ext.P12 order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner. The petitioner filed several writ petitions before this Court and representations before the several other authorities in connection with the construction of a house. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1^st respondent without ascertaining the ground reality, reversed an order granting permission to convert a paddy land for constructing a residential building and ignoring

¶67

-7-

¶68

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶69

the fact that the complainant have two houses of his own and the petitioner does not possess an abode. The petitioner’s application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order was rejected on flimsy reasons and this Court as per Ext.P7 judgment directed to grant permission. Consequently, Ext.P8 order was passed on 26.12.2015. Based on Ext.P8 order, the building permit was issued as evident by Ext.P9 on 22.02.2016. The petitioner started construction of the house as evident by Exts.P10 and P11 photographs. Thereafter, on 06.02.2017 an appeal is filed by the 4^th respondent challenging Ext.P8 order dated 26.12.2015. The dates are important because, the appeal was filed on 06.02.2017 and the impugned order in the appeal is dated 26.12.2015. The Land Revenue Commissioner, as per Ext.P12 order, reversed Ext.P8 order and remanded the matter

¶70

-8-

¶71

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶72

to the 2^nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition

¶73

is filed with following prayers:

¶74

“(i) Call for records connecting Exhibit P-12 from the 1^st respondent and quash Exhibit P-12 by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶75

(ii) Grant such other relief that this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”(sic)

¶76

WP(C) No.10373 of 2022 is filed for assigning

¶77

building number to the constructed building. The prayers in this writ petition is extracted here:

¶78

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to assign building number to the petitioner’s building as applied and evidenced by Exhibit P6 within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶79

(ii) Such other reliefs as deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”(sic)

¶80

WP(C) No.22008 of 2017 is filed by the 4^th

¶81

respondent in WP(C) No.16863 of 2017 with following prayers:

¶82

-9-

¶83

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶84

“a) Mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to 5 to consider the Exhibit P14 application and pass orders within such period that the honourable court may fix.

¶85

b) Mandamus directing the respondents No.3 to 5 to see that the respondents No.6 to 8 do not reclaim the land or undertake any construction in the property situated in R.S.No.95/1B1A of Kadirur village pending disposal of Exhibit P14 application; and

¶86

c) Any other relief that the honourable court may deem appropriate to meet the ends of justice.” (sic)

¶87

Heard the counsel for the petitioners, the counsel

¶88

appearing for the Panchayat and the Government Pleader. I also

¶89

heard the counsel appearing for the additional 6^th respondent in WP(C) No.16863 of 2017.

¶90

This Court perused the entire records. After

¶91

considering all the aspects and based on the relevant documents available, this Court delivered Ext.P7 judgment. It will be better to extract Ext.P7 judgment here:

¶92

-10-

¶93

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶94

“Petitioner approached the Sub Collector, Thalassery by Ext.P2 under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order seeking permission to utilise the land situated in R.S.No 95/1BIA of Kathirur village. This was declined as per Ext.P10. Petitioner challenges the above order. Admittedly, the above land is not included in the draft data bank prepared under Act 28 of 2008.

¶95

2. The reason for rejection is that if the petitioner is allowed to reclaim the land, it may affect the flow of water channel. It also appears that there are certain other paddy fields surrounding his land.

¶96

3. The scope of enquiry under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is very limited. The Kerala Land Utilisation Order is within the domain of subordinate legislation promulgated by virtue of the power conferred under the Essential Commodities Act. The power to grant relaxation in terms of clause 6 is to utilise the land for any purpose when the same is not required to be retained for the cultivation of food crops. If any land is under cultivation of food crops, either three years before 1967 or after three years, the Collector has necessary power under clause 7 of the KLU Order to command the owner of land to cultivate the crops which were under cultivation. It is to ensure cultivation of that food crops, the power is vested with the Collector under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to command the land owner. It is only when cultivation

¶97

-11-

¶98

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶99

is not feasible or any essential commodity is not required to be cultivated, the power under clause 6 of KLU Order can be exercised to permit the holder of land to utilise land for other purposes.

¶100

4. The domain of the KLU Order is different from the purview of the Act 28 of 2008. Act 28 of 2008, in fact, contemplates preservation of biodiversity and ecological preservation of paddy and green fields. The Kerala Land Utilisation Order has no such field of operation It was only promulgated to secure food crops, which were found essential, at the relevant point of time. Therefore, once land in question is not required for cultivation of food crops, this Court is of the view that the right of the owner cannot be fettered by citing that reclamation would affect the water channel.

¶101

5. No doubt, the right of the third party cannot be affected on account of reclamation, for that what is required is the regulatory mechanism rather than complete prohibition of the reclamation. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. There shall be a direction to the Sub Collector to grant permission to the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order after safeguarding the right of the neighbouring owners. The petitioner shall abide by the condition by the Sub Collector to protect the interest of the neighbouring owners. Needful shall be done by the

¶102

-12-

¶103

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶104

Sub Collector within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶105

This writ petition is disposed of as above.”

¶106

(Underline supplied)

¶107

Based on Ext.P7 judgment, the 2^nd respondent issued

¶108

Ext.P8 order on 26.12.2015. Consequently, Ext.P9 building permit was also issued on 22.02.2016. The petitioner constructed the building as evident by Exts.P10 and P11. Subsequently, after about 1 year, an appeal is filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner by respondents 4 and 5 in WP(C) No.16863 of 2017. The Land Revenue Commissioner was pleased to set aside Ext.P8 order and directed the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the matter. Ext.P2 is the order. I am not in a position to accept Ext.P12 order. Ext.P12 order is passed flouting the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. In Ext.P7 judgment it is clearly stated that once the land in

¶109

-13-

¶110

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶111

question is not required for cultivation of food crops, this Court is of the view that the right of the owner cannot be fettered by citing that reclamation would affect the water channel. This Court also observed that the right of third party cannot be affected on account of reclamation, for that what is required is the regulatory mechanism rather than complete prohibition of the reclamation. Therefore, this Court after setting aside the impugned order, directed the Sub Collector to grant permission to the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order after safeguarding the right of the neighbouring owners. The above order is set aside by the appellate authority. According to me, this is nothing but clear case of flouting the directions of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. Ext.P12 will not stand in the eye of law in the light of Ext.P7 judgment. The maximum that can be ordered by the Land Revenue

¶112

-14-

¶113

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶114

Commissioner is only to see that there is regulatory mechanism.

¶115

The Land Revenue Commissioner can safeguard the rights of the neighbouring owners. For that purpose, the Land Revenue Commissioner cannot set aside Ext.P8 order, which is passed as directed by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. Therefore, according to me, Ext.P12 will not stand in the eye of law, as it is against Ext.P7 judgment. Therefore, Ext.P12 order is to be set aside. I make it clear that the Land Revenue Commissioner can pass appropriate orders, in accordance to the directions passed by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. The Land Revenue Commissioner cannot remand the appeal to the lower authority, in the light of Ext.P7 judgment. If any regulatory mechanism is necessary to protect the right of the neighbouring owners, additional conditions can be imposed by the Land Revenue Commissioner. That all can be done by the Land Revenue

¶116

-15-

¶117

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶118

Commissioner, in the light of Ext.P7 judgment. Therefore,

¶119

Ext.P12 is to be set aside. The Land Revenue Commissioner can be directed to reconsider the matter, in the light of Ext.P7, within a time frame.

¶120

WP(C) No.10373 of 2022 is filed to number the building. There can be a direction to the Grama Panchayat to give number, provisionally, to the building already constructed, subject to the decision to be taken by the Land Revenue Commissioner.

¶121

As far as the prayers in WP(C) No.22008 of 2017 is concerned, the same is left open and the petitioners can take appropriate steps based on the decision of the Land Revenue Commissioner.

¶122

Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner:

¶123

-16-

¶124

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶125

Ext.P12 in WP(C) No.16863 of 2017 is set aside. The 1^st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in the appeal, in the light of Ext.P7 judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1^st respondent will also consider that the appeal is filed after about 1 year from the date on which Ext.P8 order is passed. But I make it clear that all the contentions of the appellants in that appeal are left open and they are free to agitate their contentions before the 1^st respondent. I also make it clear that the Land Revenue Commissioner will also look into the contentions of the respondents that whether any conditions are violated.

¶126

Respondents in WP(C) No.10373 of 2022 is directed to give a provisional number to the building constructed by the petitioner in that case, subject to the final decision by the Land Revenue Commissioner in WP(C) No.16863 of 2017.

¶127

-17-

¶128

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶129

The contentions in WP(C) No.22008 of 2017 are left open and the petitioners are free to agitate the same, after the orders are passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner.

¶130

sd/-

¶131

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶132

das

¶133

-18-

¶134

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶135

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16863/2017

¶136

`PETITIONER EXHIBIT` `EXHIBIT-P1`	`S` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE PROPERTY OF T`	`PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING` `HE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT-P2`	`TRUE COPY ORF THE` `DATED 12/06/2014` `GRAMA PANCHAYATH`	`BUILDING PERMIT` `GRANTE BY KATHIRUR` `TO THE DAUGHTER`
`EXHIBIT-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `CONSTRUCTED BY TH` `PETITIONER`	`RESIDENTIAL BUILDING` `E DAUGHTER OF THE`
`EXHIBIT-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `08/08/2014 OF THE` `THE 3RD RESPONDEN`	`ORDER DATED` `2ND RESPONDENT TO`
`EXHIBIT-P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `FILED BY THE 2ND` `23715/2014`	`COUNTER AFFIDAVIT` `RESPONDENT IN W.P(C)`
`EXHIBIT-P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `18/08/2015 OF THE`	`ORDER DATED` `2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT-P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `06/11/2015 IN W.P`	`JUDGMENT DATED` `(C) 26712/2015`
`EXHIBIT-P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`ORDER OF THE 2ND` `26/12/2015`
`EXHIBIT-P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `22/02/2016 ISSUED` `GRAMA PANCHAYATH`	`BUILDING PERMIT DATED` `BY THE KATHIRUR` `TO THE PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT-10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE CONSTRUCTION`	`PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING` `OF PETITIONER'S HOUSE`
`EXHIBIT-P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE CONSTRUCTION` `PROPERTIES OF THE`	`PHTOGRAPHS SHOWING` `OF NEIGHBOURING` `PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT-P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `03/05/2017 OF THE`	`ORDER DATED` `IST RESPONDENT`
`RESPONDENT EXHIBIT`	`S`
`Exhibit R4(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF DOCU` `OF SRO KADIRUR.`	`MENT NO. 1333 OF 2013`

¶137

-19-

¶138

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶139

Exhibit R4(b)TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATABANK PUBLISHED BY THE SECRETARY,
KADIRUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, UNDER THE
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND
WETLAND ACT.
Exhibit R4(c)TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
21.06.2017 , FILED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LLMC AND OTHERS.

¶140

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶141

Exhibit P13TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
28.03.2016 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND
THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 25.4.2016.
Exhibit P14TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION NOTICE
DATED 9.6.2017 ISSUED BY BINNY M
ADVOCATE/COMMISSIONER IN O.S. NO.
33/2014 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT,
THALASSERY.

¶142

Exhibit P15TRUE FACEBOOK POSTING OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DOWNLOADED FROM THE
INTERNET.

¶143

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶144

Exhibit r4(d)COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ABOVE
MENTIONED BLOCKED CHANNEL, THE PLOT OF
KEERTHI AND BIJOY WHERE THEIR HOUSE IS
BEING CONSTRUCTED AND THE ABUTTING NEW
ROAD CREATED BY BLOCKING THE CHANNEL.
Exhibit R4(e)COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM KADIRUR
PANCHAYAT SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF
APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT FROM
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶145

-20-

¶146

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶147

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22008/2017

¶148

`PETITIO` `EXHIBIT`	`NER EXHI` `P1`	`BITS` `TRUE COPY OF` `OF SRO KADIRU`	`DOCUMENT NO. 1745 OF 2009` `R`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `OF SRO KADIRU`	`DOCUMENT NO. 1333 OF 2013` `R`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `OF SRO KADIRU`	`DOCUMENT NO. 2677 OF 2009` `R`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DATABANK PUBL` `RESPONDENT UN` `CONSERVATION` `ACT.`	`RELEVANT PAGES OF THE` `ISHED BY THE 5TH` `DER THE KERALA` `OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF` `22.02.2016 OB` `RESPONDENT FR`	`BUILDING PERMIT DATED` `TAINED BY THE 6TH` `OM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `12.06.2014 OB` `RESPONDENT FR`	`BUILDING PERMIT DATED` `TAINED BY THE 7TH AND 8TH` `OM THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF` `19.11.2014 FI` `HEREIN FILED` `2014 OF THIS`	`COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED` `LED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `IN W.P.(C) NO. 23715 OF` `HONOURABLE COURT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `IN W.P.(C) NO` `COURT OF KERA`	`JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2015` `. 23715 OF 2014 OF HIGH` `LA.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF` `IN W.P.(C) NO` `COURT OF KERA`	`JUDGMENT DATED 06.01.2015` `. 26712 OF 2015 OF HIGH` `LA.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE`	`ORDER DATED 26.12.2015` `2ND RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE` `COMMISSIONER.`	`ORDER DATED 03.05.2017` `LAND REVENUE`
`EXHIBIT`	`P12`	`TRUE COPY OF` `23.05.2017 IN` `2017 OF HIGH`	`INTERIM ORDER DATED` `W.P.(C) NO. 16863 OF` `COURT OF KERALA.`

¶149

-21-

¶150

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶151

`EXHIBIT`	`P13`	`TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION` `DATED 30.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE FIRST` `RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P14`	`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED` `21.06.2017, FILED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE LLMC AND OTHER AUTHORITIES` `CONCERNED.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P15`	`TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 21.06.2017` `ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P16`	`TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 21.06.2017` `ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`
`RESPOND`	`ENT EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`R6 a`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS` `NO.33/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND` `HIS WIFE BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,` `THALASSERY.`
`Exhibit`	`R6 a`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT WHICH IS OBTAINED UNDER` `RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.`
`Exhibit`	`R6 b`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT WHICH IS OBTAINED UNDER` `RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.`
`Exhibit`	`R6 c`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT DATED 28.03.2014.`
`Exhibit`	`R6 d`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT DATED 28/03/2014 IN RESPECT` `OF THE PROPERTY OF 7TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`R6 e`	`TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING CONSTRUCTION` `OF 6TH RESPONDENT'S BUILDING.`
`Exhibit`	`R6 f`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED` `28/03/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`R6 g`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED` `25.04.20016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`

¶152

-22-

¶153

W.P.(C) Nos. 10373 of 2022 and 16863 & 22008 of 2017

¶154

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10373/2022

¶155

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHIBIT`	`S`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `6.11.2015 IN W.P.C NO. 26712/2015 OF` `THIS HON'BLE COURT.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `26.12.2015 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR,` `THALASSERY.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED` `22.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.5.2017` `OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `23.05.2017 IN W.P.C NO. 16863/2017 OF` `THIS HON'BLE COURT.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD` `DATED 18.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE HOUSE OF` `THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION` `CARD OF THE PETITIONER'S SON KIRAN` `WITH POORNIMA SOLEMNIZED ON` `28.12.2017.`

Edacholi Manatt Shubhanghi v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edacholi Manatt Shubhanghi v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

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

Snedar.S., Vs Chenkal Grama Panchayath

Abdul Salam N P Vs the State of Kerala

P.K.Muhammedali Vs the Amarambalam Grama Panchayath

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Sibin Varghese, Vs the State of Kerala

Murikoli Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala