Dismissed

Mariamma Baby v. the District Collector

Kerala HC20 Jan 2023WP(C)/3315/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008. The court held that no adjudication is possible as the petitioner admitted an application seeking removal from the data bank was dismissed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, leaving the petitioner to pursue further remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to pursue action against the order passed by the LLMC or the Revenue Divisional Officer.

Mariamma Baby Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 3315 OF 2014

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

MARIAMMA BABY

¶7

W/O. BABY, PUNCHAKONAM VEEDU, VELLACHAL, ELAMAD
P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM-691 013.

¶11

2 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ELAMADU VILLAGE, ELAMAD P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 539.

¶13

4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, POOYAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM-691 537.

¶14

5 SMT. R. RAJEENA, HASEENA HOUSE, EDAVAZHIKKAL, NETTAYAM P.O., ELAMAD VILLAGE, AYUR, KOLLAM-691 537.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

R1 TO 4 - SRI.JOBY JOSEPH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT
PLEADER

¶17

R5 – SRI. T. S. RAJASENAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W. P. (C) No. 3315 of 2014

¶20

-2-

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following

¶23

reliefs:-

¶24

“i) To Call for the Records leading to Ext.P2 and P3 and the proceedings against the Petitioner under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 from the 2^nd Respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the entire proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 against the Petitioner;

¶25

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st Respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 Application within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court and to give permission to the Petitioner to conduct Rubber Nursery in the property comprised in Re-Sy.No:510/11 in Block No:29 of Elamadu Village covered in Ext.P1 notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act 2008;

¶26

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd Respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 and P6 Applications within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court and to effect appropriate correction in the Basic Tax Register of the Petitioner's Property comprised in Re-Sy. No:510/11 in Block No:29 of Elamadu Village covered in Ext.P1 and to exonerate the Petitioner from the proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act 2008;

¶27

W. P. (C) No. 3315 of 2014

¶28

-3-

¶29

iv) To declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get permission to conduct Rubber Nursery from the 1^st Respondent and to effect appropriate correction in the Basic Tax Register of the Property comprised in Re-Sy.No:510/11 in Block No:29 of Elamadu Village covered in Ext.P1 from the 2^nd Respondent and to exonerate from the proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act 2008.”

¶30

The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 11.25 ares of property comprised in resurvey No. 510/11 of Elamadu Village. The said property was purchased by the petitioner as per sale deed No. 1382/1983 of Oyoor Sub Registry. The case of the petitioner is that even though as per the basic tax records the property is a ‘nilam’, there is no paddy cultivation in the area for the last seven years. Various other contentions are also raised with respect to the development of the property before the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

¶31

A detailed adjudication of the matter as is sought for in the writ petition is not required since learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. B. Mohan Lal fairly submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, application submitted before the Local Level Monitoring Committee seeking removal of the property from the data bank was dismissed. But he stated that the order is not served on him.

¶32

W. P. (C) No. 3315 of 2014

¶33

-4-

¶34

Once a paddy field is included in the data bank, the remedy available to the petitioner is to seek removal of the property before the LLMC prior to introduction of the proviso to Section 5(4) of the Act 2008. Whether the application is dismissed prior to the same by the LLMC or subsequently by the Revenue Divisional Officer after 30.12.2017, it is for the petitioner to pursue further remedies, in accordance with law.

¶35

In that view of the matter, I do not think anything survives to be adjudicated in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to pursue any action against the order passed by the LLMC / the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶36

Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

///TRUE COPY///

P. A. TO JUDGE

W. P. (C) No. 3315 of 2014

¶41

-5-

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3315/2014

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF
THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR
2013-14 DTD.3.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶45

EXHIBIT P2COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.702/2013
DTD.26.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶46

EXHIBIT P3COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B10-28737/2013
DTD.13.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶47

EXHIBIT P4COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1715/2013
REGISTERED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST
THE PETITIONER.

¶48

EXHIBIT P5COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DTD.9.1.2014 BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P3.

¶49

EXHIBIT P6COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DTD.9.1.2014 BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DTD.24.1.2014 BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.

Mariamma Baby v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariamma Baby v. the District Collector

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

V.Sundaramoorthy Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Suresh K.C. Vs National Institute of Technology, Calicut, Represented by Its Director

Ismail Moosa Vs Vadakkanchery Grama Panchayath

Jose Sanal, Vs the District Collector

Anitha Baiju, Vs the District Collector

Abdul Vahid Vs the Principal, Arts and Science College