Disposed

Shirley Philip v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC29 Nov 2022WP(C)/1756/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition wherein the petitioner challenged incursion of un-notified land and fee demand under Kerala Act, 2008. Referencing a referenced judgment regarding refund, the Court directed disposal following precedent upon submission of refund application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit application for refund; respondent to consider in light of precedent within three months.

Shirley Philip Vs Revenue Divisional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1756 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHIRLEY PHILIP AGED 56 YEARS W/O. PHILIP ABRAHAM, PHILS EDASSERIATHU, KEEZHCHERIMEL, CHENGANNUR P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 689 121.

¶8

BY ADVS. VARUGHESE M EASO VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶11

OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 001.

¶12

2 THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR THALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 041.

¶14

4 THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE EDAPPALLY SUB REGISTRAR, PONEKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 041.

¶15

5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, VYTTILA KRISHIBHAVAN, VYTTILA P.O.,ERNAKULAM - 682 019

¶16

¶17

WP(C) No. 1756 of 2020

¶18

6 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 1.

¶19

7 THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682 035.

¶20

BY ADV JANARDHANA SHENOY SRI.S.RENJITH GP.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C) No. 1756 of 2020

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2022

¶26

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P13 and has sought for a declaration that incorporation of Clause xvii(A) in Section 2, insertion of un-notified land in Section 14 and incorporation of Section 27A and consequential provisions in the 2008 Act and the amendment brought under 2008 Rules framed thereunder are beyond the powers of the legislature and ultravires Constitution of India and to strike down the same as unconstitutional.

¶27

Going through the pleadings in the writ petition, it is

¶28

evident that the petitioner is aggrieved by the demand of fee made under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land

¶29

¶30

WP(C) No. 1756 of 2020

¶31

and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder, for changing the nature of land.

¶32

Pending the writ petition, pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 22.01.2020, the petitioner has deposited the requisite fee as indicated in Ext.P13 letter, contends the petitioner. The payment is evidenced by Ext.P14.

¶33

The question of refund of fee levied under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and the Rules made thereunder came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5449/2019 and connected cases. In the said batch of writ petitions, this Court passed Ext.P15 judgment directing to refund the amount paid by the writ petitioners therein. Going through the pleadings, I find that the issue raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by Ext.P15 judgment of this Court. In that view of the matter, the writ petition can be disposed of following Ext.P15 judgment.

¶34

¶35

WP(C) No. 1756 of 2020

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner submits an application for refund the fee paid by her under protest pursuant to the orders of this Court, the same shall be considered

¶37

by the 1^st respondent in the light of Ext.P15 judgment. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt

¶38

of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

WP(C) No. 1756 of 2020

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1756/2020

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO.2194/2005 DATED 21/03/2005 OF SRO EDAPALLY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RTI 100/2019 DATED 10/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 24/03/2012. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.KL07022412981/2019 DATED 19/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BTR REGISTER, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATIONS DATED 12/03/2019 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD ACKNOWLEDGING EXHIBIT P6 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 09/04/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.11252/2019 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12/04/2019 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF P9/5 AND P9/6 PAGES.

¶48

¶49

WP(C) No. 1756 of 2020

¶50

EXHIBIT P10	TRUE	CO	PY	OF	ACK	NOW	LEDGEM	ENT	CARD
	ACKNO RESPO	WLEDG NDENT	ING .	THE	EXHI	BIT	P9 B	Y THE	1ST
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE IN W.	COPY P.(C)	OF NO	THE .1125	JUDGME 2/2019	NT .	DATED	20/06	/2019
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE DT.18	CO /07/2	PY 019	OF ISSU	AC ED OFF	KNOW THE	LEDGM 1ST	ENT RESPON	CARD DENT.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE DATED WITH	COPY 28/1 ENGLI	O 1/2 SH	F TH 019 B TRANS	E LET Y THE LATION	TER 1ST .	NO.K RESPO	2-2989 NDENT	/2019 ALONG
Exhibit P14	TRUE 19/02	COPY /2020	OF IS	THE SUED	ORDER BY THE	NO 1ST	K2-29 RESP	89/19 ONDENT	DATED .
Exhibit P14(a)	TRUE KL014	C 02161	OPY 220	1920M	OF DATED	THE 28/	CH 01/20	ALAN 20.	NO
Exhibit P15	TRUE	COPY	OF	THE	COMMON	JUD	GMENT	DATED	5-4-
	2022 CONNE	IN CTED	WP( CAS	C) ES.	NOS.	5449	OF	2019	AND

Shirley Philip v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shirley Philip v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

K.P.Devadas Vs State of Kerala

Paul Palokkaran, Vs the District Collector

A.G.Poulose, Vs the District Collector

Anitha Sujith, Vs the State of Kerala

Abraham Thomas Vs K.Harikumar

Ghosh Agri Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Ideal Exports