High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-09-25Disposed of with directions to implement the co...

Cont.Case(C) No. 613 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.7162/18 & W.P.(C) No.18766/22

Case / Petition Number:CON.CASE(C) NO. 613 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T.R. Ravi
Judgment Date: 2023-09-25
Court Decision / Holding: Cont.Case No.613/2022 and WP(C) No.18766/2022 are disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to pass orders in line with the consensus reached: retain the water channel within the petitioner’s land and treat that portion as paddy land, while removing the remaining land from the data bank. The LLMC is to arrange a land survey through the Taluk Surveyor in the petitioner’s presence within one month of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, so as to facilitate further steps before the Revenue Divisional Officer as directed by Ext.P3 and the judgment in W.P.(C) No.7162/2018; this ensures the petitioner’s rights are safeguarded without hampering nearby agricultural operations.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions to implement the consensus: retain the water channel portion as paddy land and remove the rest from the data bank; conduct a survey within one month in the petitioner’s presence; proceed before the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P3 and the earlier judgments.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Johnson P. Louis

Respondents

The Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, VeLLookkara Grama Panchayath, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur 680683
The Village Officer, Kaduppassery Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur 680683

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Jinish Paul

Counsels for Respondents

• Jaffer Khan, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Contempt Case No.613 of 2022 together with W.P.(C) Nos.7162/2018 and 18766/2022 arises from proceedings concerning the inclusion of the petitioner’s land in a data bank maintained by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and related land-management issues, including an irrigation water channel traversing the property. The High Court had previously disposed W.P.(C) No.7162/2018 by setting aside Ext.P6, directing the first respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s application in light of this Court’s decisions in Mather Nagar Residents Association v. District Collector (2020) 2 KLT 192 and Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram (2021) 6 KHC 316, and strictly on the basis of the KSREC report and the land’s actual nature, holding that the land should not be rejected merely for being low-lying or waterlogged. In the Contempt petition, statements by respondents were placed on record and an Advocate Commissioner’s report was filed. After negotiations, the parties reached a consensus: retain the existing water channel within the petitioner’s southern land and treat that area as paddy land, while removing the remainder from the data bank. The Contempt Case and WP( C ) 18766/2022 were disposed of directing the LLMC to pass orders in this line and to undertake a survey through the Taluk Surveyor in the petitioner’s presence within one month, enabling further action before the Revenue Divisional Officer as directed by Ext.P3 and the earlier judgments.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the LLMC’s Ext.P6 order was erroneous and that the proper course is to reconsider the application in light of this Court’s judgments (Mather Nagar Residents Association and Jessy Abraham) and KSREC findings, focusing on the land’s actual agricultural nature. The petition seeks relief from being placed in the data bank in a manner incompatible with the land’s use, and urges adherence to the principle that objections should not be grounded solely on land being waterlogged or low-lying, given the judgments directing a contextual reassessment.

Contentions of Respondents

The LLMC and respondents maintain that the data bank classification and actions were valid, but after evidence and consensus a practical arrangement has been reached: retain the water channel area in question as paddy land and remove the rest from the data bank to prevent disruption of irrigation and agricultural activities. They rely on a verification process and KSREC report, arguing that the land’s functional characteristics must guide its treatment in the data bank.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mather Nagar Residents Association v. District Collector	2020 (2) KLT 192	Positive	Cited and applied to guide reconsideration of LLMC orders in light of the land’s actual use and to avoid undue exclusion of land from data banks based merely on location or waterlogging.
Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram	2021 (6) KHC 316	Positive	Cited as supportive authority for applying nuanced, land-use-based criteria in data-bank decisions consistent with equitable agricultural rights.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Cont.Case(C) No. 613 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.7162/18 & W.P.(C) No.18766/22 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 3RD ASWINA, 1945** **CON.CASE(C) NO. 613 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7162/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** JOHNSON P. LOUIS.,AGED 63 YEARS S/O. P V LOUIS, CHATHIYALI (H), KODUPPASSERY P.O., KODUPPASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR 680 683. BY ADV SRI P.JINISH PAUL ## **RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:** DHANYA V(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CONVENER, THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VELOOKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR 680 683. BY SRI JAFFER KHAN, SR.GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.09.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).18766/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: COC.No.613/22 in WPC No.7162/18 & WPC No.18766/22 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 3RD ASWINA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 18766 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** JOHNSON P. LOUIS,AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. P.V. LOUIS, CHATHIYALI (H), KADUPPASSERY P.O, KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR 680 683. BY ADV SRI P.JINISH PAUL ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VELOOKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR 680 683. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR 680 683. BY ADVS. SRI JAFFER KHAN, SR.GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.09.2023, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).613/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: COC.No.613/22 in WPC No.7162/18 & WPC No.18766/22 3 **T.R. RAVI, J.** **-------------------------------------------Cont.Case (C)No.613 of 2022 in W.P.(C)No.7162 of 2018 & W.P.(C)No.18766 of 2022 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 25th day of September, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The Contempt Case and W.P.(C)No.18766 of 2022 relate to the same issue and are being heard and disposed of together. 2. W.P.(C)No.7162 of 2018 was disposed of setting aside Ext.P6 proceedings of the LLMC and directing the 1[st] respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner in the light of the judgments of this Court in **Mather Nagar Residents Association v. District Collector [2020 (2) KLT 192]** and **Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram [2021 (6) KHC 316]** , and strictly on the basis of the findings in the report of the KSRSEC and the actual nature of the land. It was also ordered that the application shall not be rejected for the sole reason that the land is lying low or is waterlogged. COC.No.613/22 in WPC No.7162/18 & WPC No.18766/22 4 2. The Contempt Case is filed stating that even after the judgment in W.P.(C)No.7162 of 2018, the 1[st] respondent has issued orders on the same reasoning. The subsequent proceedings are challenged in W.P.(C)No.18766 of 2022, wherein they are produced as Exts.P6 and P7. The Government Pleader had placed on record statements by the respondents. This Court had directed verification of the land in question by an Advocate Commissioner, who has filed a report. Thereafter, the case was posted on several instances, for arriving at a consensus, since it is seen that a water channel is going through the southern portion of the petitioner's property from west to east carrying water from the western paddy land to the major drain. The apprehension of the respondents was that if the property is allowed to be removed from the data bank, that can result in filling up of the entire land, thereby affecting the agricultural activities in the nearby lands by stopping the flow of water. After several deliberations, the parties have now arrived at a consensus and it is agreed that the water channel which is presently existing can be retained and the area that is covered by the water channel can be maintained as a paddy land and rest of the land can COC.No.613/22 in WPC No.7162/18 & WPC No.18766/22 5 be removed from the data bank. The said consensus appears to be the proper and most practical solution for the issue, since it will neither affect the right of the petitioner, nor the agriculturists who are carrying on agricultural operations in nearby lands. Contempt Case No.613 of 2022 and W.P.(C)No.18766 of 2022 are hence disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent in the writ petition to pass orders in the above lines and the said respondent may also take necessary steps for getting the land surveyed through Taluk Surveyor in the presence of the petitioner and the 1[st] respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, for facilitating further steps before the Revenue Divisional Officer as directed by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment produced along with W.P.(C)No.18766 of 2022 and the judgment in W.P.(C)No.7162 of 2018. **==> picture [325 x 46] intentionally omitted <==** Sd/- **T.R. RAVI JUDGE** ## **dsn** COC.No.613/22 in WPC No.7162/18 & WPC No.18766/22 6 ## **APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 613/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 7162/2018 DATED 24.01.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT. ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. ## **EXTS.PRODUCED ALONG WITH COMMISSION REPORT** ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION WARRANT DATED 22.08.2022 ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE SERVED ON THE PARTIES PRESENT AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 04.09.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 06.09.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER. ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (6 NOS) SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY. ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES. ANNEXURE A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (2 NOS) SHOWING THE ADJOINING PROPERTY ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY ANNEXURE A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (2 NOS) SHOWING THE ADJOINING PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY. ANNEXURE A10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (3 NOS) SHOWING THE ADJOINING IRRIGATION CANAL ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY. ANNEXURE A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (2 NOS) SHOWING THE TARRED MOTORABLE ROAD ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY COC.No.613/22 in WPC No.7162/18 & WPC No.18766/22 7 - ANNEXURE A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (7 NOS) SHOWING THE WATER CHANNEL WITHIN THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. - ANNEXURE A13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (2 NOS) SHOWING THE OPENING ON THE SOUTH-EASTERN CORNER OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. - ANNEXURE A14 . A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (2 NOS) SHOWING THE OUT FLOW OF WATER FROM THE NEARBY PROPERTY TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY - ANNEXURE A15 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (3NOS) SHOWING THE IRRIGATION CANAL/DISTRIBUTARY GOING THROUGH THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE NEARBY PROPERTY. - ANNEXURE A16 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (3 NOS) SHOWING THE TWO DISTRIBUTARIES/CANALS. - ANNEXURE A17 . A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS(2 NO.) SHOWING THE IRRIGATION CANAL/DISTRIBUTARY (DISTRIBUTARY/CANAL NO. 1) GOING THROUGH THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE FALLOW LAND. - ANNEXURE A18 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS(2 NOS) SHOWING THE SHUTTER/BLOCKING SYSTEM ON THE IRRIGATION CANAL ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY - RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE LLMC DATED 16/02/2022 ANNEXURE R(1) B COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 23.02.2017 ANNEXURE R(1) C TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS(2 NO.S) SHOWING THE NATURE OF PROPERTY ANNEXURE R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS ANNEXURE R(1)E A TRUE COPY OF THE BENEFICIARY LIST GATHERED FROM SUPPLYCO. ANNEXURE R1(F) A COPY OF ONLINE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MR VISWAMBARAN M K. COC.No.613/22 in WPC No.7162/18 & WPC No.18766/22 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18766/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.05.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO. 19541/2017 DATED 30.06.17. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY KSREC. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO. 7162/2018 DATED 24.01.2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 16.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT - R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION