Disposed

Nithin, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/24342/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Sub Collector at Devikulam to consider an application by a petitioner for mutation of his property located in a notified sanctuary, ensuring due process of law with notice and hearing before passing an order within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's mutation application after notice and hearing to petitioner and Wild Life Warden, within two months.

Nithin, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 24342 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

1NITHIN,
AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O. SUBRAN, KARAPPILLY HOUSE, KIZHUKUMURY VILLAGE,
KORATTY, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
BIJU C. ABRAHAM
THOMAS C.ABRAHAM

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

2THE SUB COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM,
IDUKKI DISTRICT. (ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF SPECIAL OFFICER)
– 685 613.

¶11

3 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & HEAD OF FOREST FORCE, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 014.

¶12

4 THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, DEVIKULAM CIRCULAR ROAD, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT – 685 613.

¶13

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VATTAVADA, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 612.

¶14

SRI. M.M. MANIL KUMAR, SPL.GP(REVENUE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 24342 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 03^rd day of November, 2022

¶20

The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of property admeasuring 18 Ares and 21 Square meters, Block No. 61 of Vattavada Village in Devikulam Taluk, Idukki District. The petitioner purchased the property as per sale deed No.88/2020 dated 17/01/2020. The area where the property is situated is declared as Kurinjimala Sanctuary by the Government. The petitioner relies on Ext.P3 Government Order to contend that the designated authority is empowered into and determine the existence, nature and extent of rights of any person, in or over land situated within the limits of the Kurinjimala Sanctuary.

¶21

Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application before the 2^nd respondent seeking to get the property mutated to his name after conducting the enquiry stipulated in Ext.P3. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the delay in considering the application and taking further action thereon.

¶22

Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

¶23

WP(C) NO. 24342 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

learned Government Pleader.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, for the presence, the petitioner will be satisfied with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider his application in terms of Ext.P3 Government Order.

¶27

Learned Government Pleader submitted that, the Patta produced by the petitioner are suspicious and even otherwise, mutation cannot be effected with respect to the properties falling within Block No.62 and 58 of Vattavada Village. Only Patta lands exempted under R3 (a) notice can be owned and possessed by private individuals.

¶28

In my considered opinion, the petitioner having filed an application seeking mutation of the property, it is for the 2^nd respondent to consider the application and pass appropriate orders thereon. The genuineness of the Patta produced by the petitioner and the question whether the property falls within the notified area are also to be decided by the 2^nd respondent.

¶29

The writ petition is hence disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s application, provided

¶30

WP(C) NO. 24342 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

the application is received and pending before the said authority. The decision of the application shall be taken, after issuing notice and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Wild Life Warden, Munnar. The order, as directed above, shall be passed within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO. 24342 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24342/2022

¶38

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶39

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.
88/2020 DATED 17/1/2020.

¶40

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.273/2008.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING
GO(P) NO.3/2022/F&WLD DATED 16/1/2022.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(P)
NO.2122/2022/GAD DATED 23/5/2022.

¶41

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT R3(a)True copy of the Notification No.
GO(P)36/2006/F AND WLD dated 06-10-2006
EXHIBIT R3(b)True copy of the Notification No. GO (MS)
No. 74/F AND WLD dated 12-12-2007
EXHIBIT R3(c)True copy of the Proclamation dated 08-09-
2009

Nithin, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithin, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahadevan Vs the District Collector Thrissur

Sunder Builders Vs Chief Engineer (Nw)

Neville Xavier Vs the Regional Manager, State Bank of India

Maniyan Pillai Vs Divisional Railway Manager

M/S. Asian Developers Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Palathra Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited Vs . State of Kerala