Allowed

Mary Stephen, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2022WP(C)/6787/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This controlled writ petition challenged the rejection of a Form-5 application regarding land classification. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Revenue Divisional Officer after a site inspection.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after inspecting the property with notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three months.

Mary Stephen, 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6787 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARY STEPHEN, AGED 65 YEARS W/O. STEPHEN GEORGE, THATTASSERIL HOUSE, MAIKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683589.

¶8

BY ADVS. AVANEESH KOYIKKARA NEENA BASIL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD POST, ERNAKULAM DSTRICT-682030.

¶12

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI HEAD POST, ERNAKULAM-682001.

¶13

4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MAIKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683589.

¶14

5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MAIKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683589. SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 6787 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶19

------------------------------

¶20

W.P.(C).No. 6787 of 2022

¶21

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2022

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶24

“(i) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P7 and P10 as unjust and illegal;

¶25

(ii) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing Exhibit P3 to the extent to which, the land of the petitioner is included as paddy land in the Data Bank prepared by the 4^th respondent;

¶26

(iii) To declare the land of the petitioner is not a paddy land or wet land and therefore liable to be removed from the Data Bank Register;

¶27

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 3 to 5 to remove the entries regarding the petitioner's property from the Data Bank register and to publish an erratum notification in Kerala Gazettee for the same;

¶28

(v) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 3^rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P8, the Form.5

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 6787 OF 2022

¶31

application for excluding the land of the petitioner from Data Bank, after conducting site inspection of the land along with verifying the KSREC Report, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶32

(vi) And to pass such other appropriate orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

¶33

The main grievance raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P10 order passed by the 3^rd respondent by which Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, is rejected.

¶34

Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶35

This Court perused Ext.P10 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. From a perusal of the same, it is clear that the property in dispute is a fallow land. But it is stated by the 3^rd respondent that the paddy cultivation is possible in this land. I can not agree with the same. Moreover, the observations and conclusions in the KSREC report is not properly

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 6787 OF 2022

¶38

considered by the 3^rd respondent. It will be better to extract the observations and conclusion of the KSREC report:

¶39

“OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSION

¶40

The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2018 for survey number 458/19.

¶41

In 1967 data, the plot 458/19 was observed under paddy land. The survey plot was observed under fallow land with mixed vegetation/plantation towards southern border in data of year 2008. The same landuse pattern was continued in data of subsequent years 2011, 2013 and 2018.”

¶42

Moreover, the petitioner has got a case that the 3^rd respondent has not inspected the property before passing the order. On these grounds, I think Ext.P10 can be set aside and the matter can be remitted back to 3^rd respondent for a fresh consideration.

¶43

Therefore, this writ petition allowed in the following manner:

¶44

i. Ext.P10 is set aside.

¶45

ii. The 3^rd respondent is directed to reconsider

¶46

¶47

WP(C) NO. 6787 OF 2022

¶48

the matter after inspecting the property with notice to the petitioner and after giving an opportunity of hearing also to the petitioner.

¶49

iii. The above exercise should be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a

¶50

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶53

¶54

WP(C) NO. 6787 OF 2022

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6787/2022

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

EXHIBIT P1	A COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF SU NO.458/19-2 DATED 08/06/2017 IS FROM NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE.	RVEY SUED
EXHIBIT P2	A COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF SU NO.458/19-2-2 DATED 08/06/2017 IS FROM NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE.	RVEY SUED
EXHIBIT P3	A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF BANK REGISTER ISSUED BY	DATA THE
	AGRICULTURAL OFFICER SHOWING PETITIONERS PROPERTIES.	THE
EXHIBIT P4	A COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER TOWARDS THE CORRECTIO DATA BANK REGISTER DATED 14/06/201	THE N OF 7.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN NO.22933/2017 DATED 12/07/2017.	WPC
EXHIBIT P6	A COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT ALONG LETTER DATED 29/08/2018.	WITH
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF DATED 27/09/2018.	LLMC
EXHIBIT P8	A COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICA DATED 24/06/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE	TION THE
	3RD RESPONDENT FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES OF THE DATA BANK REGISTER.	THE
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN NO.3229/2021 DATED 09/02/2021.	WPC
EXHIBIT P10	A COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K1-4805/	2021
	DATED 21/11/2021 PASSED BY THE COLLECTOR.	SUB

¶59

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶60

//TRUE COPY//

¶61

PA TO JUDGE

Mary Stephen, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Stephen, 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

Ajikumar Vs Mannar Grama Panchayath

George V.D. Vs the Secretary

State Vs M/S.Kolickanam Estate

Sumi Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith T.Das Vs the District Collector

Shahubanath Vs Mr. Rethu T. Das