Allowed

Ummer v. the Secretary, Agricultural Department

Kerala HC6 Dec 2022WP(C)/26268/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam allowed a writ petition challenging conditions imposed on the petitioner's land for non-cultivation use. Relying on precedents, the court set aside the restrictions, exempting the petitioner from filing under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

What did the court decide?

Conditions in the order permitting non-cultivation use of the property are set aside. No application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act need be filed.

Ummer Vs the Secretary, Agricultural… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 26268 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 UMMER AGED 65 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER, KIZHAKKE ANJIKATHU HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KOCHI- 682033.

¶8

2 K. E. ABDUL SALIM, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE K A IBRAHIM, KIZHAKKE ANJIKATHU HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KOCHI - 682033.

¶9

BY ADVS. N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI RENI JAMES BINIYAMIN K.S.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001

¶13

3 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.

¶14

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM - 682030.

¶15

5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682001.

¶16

6 THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK AVENUE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI – 682011.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 26268 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE OFFICE, KOONAMTHAI, PADIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM - 682024.

¶20

8 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, VADACODE P.O., KANGARAPPADY, KOCHI – 682021.

¶21

BY G.P. SRI. SYAMANTHAK.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C) NO. 26268 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioners are the absolute owners and in

¶27

possession of an extent of 75 Ares of property in Survey Nos. 197/8, 197/12, 197/13 and 197/14 of Thrikkakara North Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District.

¶28

According to the petitioners, the aforesaid property is lying as a garden land for the past several years and no paddy cultivation was carried out in and around the property. Earlier, Ext.P2 application was filed before the 4^th respondent under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for use of the property for purposes other than cultivation. The 4^th respondent passed Ext.P4 order permitting to use the property for other purposes with conditions that red earth shall not be used for filling up the property and no construction can be made in the property and that crops like tapioca and banana can be cultivated. The petitioners challenge

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 26268 OF 2022

¶31

Ext.P4 order to the extent it imposes the aforesaid conditions. The appeal preferred againstExt.P4 was rejected vide Ext.P5 order. Though Ext.P7 revision petition was filed before the 2^nd respondent, the same was rejected by Ext.P9. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Exts.P4 and P5 and Ext.P9.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the decisions of this Court reported in Archana Varghese v. District Collector, Pathanamthitta [2015 (2) KHC 39], Molly Antony and Another v. Commissioner of Land Revenue and Others [2020 KHC 5399 and Sealand Builders Pvt.Ltd (M/s) v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fortkochi [2020 (4) KHC 764 ] wherein it has been held that the holder of land is free to use the land in accordance with law and that since the KLU order does not specify for what purpose they need to utilise the land under Rule 6(2), no restriction can be imposed for the use of the land. In the

¶33

WP(C) NO. 26268 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

light of the said decisions, conditions in Ext.P4 which are affirmed in Exts.P5 & P9 are set aside. The petitioners shall not be insisted to file any application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

al/-

¶41

WP(C) NO. 26268 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26268/2022

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.06.2017.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) NO. 23144/2017 DATED 13.07.2017
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.07.2018
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER NO. LR (A)1-12208/19 DATED 30.10.2019.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) NO. 33695/2019 DATED 11.12.2019.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO. 599 OF 2021.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-05- 2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Ummer v. the Secretary, Agricultural Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummer v. the Secretary, Agricultural Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasi Kumar Vs Mayyanad Grama Panchayat

Pradeep V.K Vs the District Collector

Sidheeque Vs the Secretary, Perambra Grama Panchayat

K.R.Manoj Vs the Cherthala Municipality

Abhilash G. Vs Cherthala Municipality

Hafsa Beevi Shajahan Vs the District Collector