Remanded

Jency v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Feb 2023WP(C)/29959/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged payment demand for land conversion under paddy land rules, arguing eligibility under unnotified land category. Court set aside demand and ordered reconsideration in light of specific circular provisions.

What did the court decide?

Ext P5 demand is set aside; the 3rd respondent to reconsider the claim regarding conversion fee liability in light of Ext P6 circular within two months after affording hearing opportunity.

Jency Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

WP(C) No. 29959 of 2022 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 29959 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JENCY
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O. V.C. PAULOSE, VELIYATH HOUSE, KULAYEDAM DESOM,
KALLOOR VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK,
CHERUVALOOR P.O., THRISSUR., PIN - 680321

¶8

BY ADVS.
SHERRY J. THOMAS
JOEMON ANTONY
ANTONY NILTON REMELO

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, 1 ST FLOOR CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR., PIN - 680003

¶12

3 THE RDO, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, IRINJALAKKUDA, MINI CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKKUDA., PIN - 680125

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLUR THEKKUMURI, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR ., PIN - 680741

¶14

5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHIBHAVAN, ANNAMANADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH THRISSUR., PIN - 680741

¶15

6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, ANNAMANADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH THRISSUR ., PIN - 680741

¶16

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. SYAMANTHAK B.S.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) No. 29959 of 2022 2

¶19

VIJU ABRAHAM , J. =========================== WP(C) No. 29959 of 2022

¶20

============================ Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2023

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶23

I) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, appropriate order directing the 3^rd respondent to complete the proceedings in connection with Ext P3 application submitted by the petitioner within a time frame without insisting any payment.

¶24

ii) Issue a writ, appropriate order or declaration clarifying that the availability of any other properties are not a matter of reference in Form 6 Applications filed under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules 2008.

¶25

iii) Petitioner also prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the vernacular documents produced in the vernacular language.

¶26

iv) Such other reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant, in the interest of justice.

¶27

v) Provide cost of the proceedings.

¶28

Petitioner is in ownership and possession of 6.07 Ares of

¶29

land along with her brother vide Ext P1 sale deed. The said property is a purayidom and not included in the draft data bank published by the 5^th respondent Agriculture Officer and that the

¶30

WP(C) No. 29959 of 2022 3

¶31

said property falls under the category of unnotified land. However in the revenue records the land is shown as nilam.

¶32

Subsequently the petitioner submitted Ext P3 application under Form No.6. Ext P4 report was submitted by the Village Officer reporting that there is no paddy land in and around the above said property. It is contended that since the petitioner’s property is coming under the category of unnotified land, she is eligible to get her application in Form No.6 considered and the entries in the revenue records changed, without insisting for any payment. However by Ext P5, though permission was granted, petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 97,120/- towards the conversion proceedings.

¶33

Petitioner submits that the demand for amount as per Ext P5 is totally unsustainable. Petitioner further submits that the scheduled property is less than 25 cents as on 30.12.2017 and she relies on Ext P6 circular which validates that the change could be effected without insisting for any payment. The said circular also provide that the condition that applicant should not have any other property in his/her ownership, which need not be taken into consideration in such cases.

¶34

In para 3 of the counter affidavit submitted by the 3^rd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted an affidavit which is counter signed by the Village Officer, Kallur

¶35

WP(C) No. 29959 of 2022 4

¶36

Thekkumury Village. As per the said affidavit, petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of more than 25 cents of land as is evident from Ext R3(a) affidavit. The petitioner’s brother has also produced an affidavit which is produced as Ext R3(b) stating the total extent of land in his possession. Therefore it is submitted that since the petitioner is holding land exceeding 25 cents, she has been issued with Ext P5 notice for remitting the conversion fee of 10% of fair value amounting to Rs. 97,120/-.

¶37

Petitioner has a specific case that, the conditions in Ext P6 circular was not been taken into consideration while issuing Ext P5 wherein petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 97,120/-. Therefore, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition directing the 3^rd respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner that she is not liable to pay any amount towards conversion fee in the light of Ext P6 circular. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. To facilitate a reconsideration as directed above, Ext P5 demand is set aside.

¶38

With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM

JUDGE

sbk/-

WP(C) No. 29959 of 2022 5

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29959/2022

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit1THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DATED
19/01/2013
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
6-3-2021.
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO. 6
APPLICATION.
Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 9.6.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER
Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 3 RD
RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED
23-8- 2022.
Exhibit P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 10-12-
2021.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(a)TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17.08.2022
OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R3(b)TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17.08.2022
OF THE BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER (BENSON)

Jency v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jency v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Jacob Vs Corportion of Cochin

Varkala Municipality, Vs the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions

Jithin Dinesan Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian M G Vs Dr. v. Meera

Cleetus Vincent Vs Pallipuram Grama Panchayat

M/S. White Field Resorts Private Limited Vs the Kumrakom Grama Panchayath