High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-06-01Disposed of

P K Baby v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO.17664 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2023-06-01
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of: Ext. P17 set aside; 1st respondent to reconsider the application afresh within two months, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, taking into account Ext. P9, Ext. P4, and the judgment in Pradeep Kumar VG (Dr.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P K Baby

Respondents

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District
The Tahsildar (Land Records), Kunnathunadu Taluk, Perumbavoor
The Village Officer, Puthenkurishu Village, Vadavukode P.O., Kunnathunadu Taluk
The Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by its Convenor, Puthenkurishu Krishibhavan
Special Tahsildar (LA) for Power Grid Corporation of India
State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue
The District Collector, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Varughese M Easo
• Vivek Varghese P.J.

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P. K. Baby, owns land within the residential area of Puthencruz Town in Ernakulam District. In 2003, the Government of India entrusted the 5th respondent with installing a 400 kV high-tension transmission line from Koodamkulam to Pallikkara, prompting authorities to direct tree-cutting on the petitioner’s property. Subsequently, the land was erroneously included in Ext. P5 Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, despite the land not being paddy land. The petitioner filed Ext. P6 (Form 5) seeking removal from the Data Bank, supported by Exts. P7–P9 reports; however, the 1st respondent, though receiving these reports, did not conduct a hearing or consider the petitioner's legal contentions. Earlier writ petitions (W.P. (C) Nos. 7685 of 2022 and 21854 of 2022) culminated in Ext. P16, directing fresh consideration of Ext. P6 after evaluating Ext. P9 and Ext. P4, and in light of the decision in Pradeep Kumar VG (Dr.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram (2021) 5 KHC 111. Nonetheless, the 1st respondent issued Ext. P17, rejecting Ext. P6. Contempt proceedings followed (C.C. No. 337/2023). The court found Ext. P17 improper, set it aside, and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the application within two months after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, taking into account the PGCIL-related reports and the LLMC findings. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the land in question is not paddy land and lies within a residential zone; the 400 kV transmission line necessitated tree-cutting, but Ext. P5 data bank wrongly included the land. Ext. P6 (Form 5) was filed to remove the land from Data Bank, supported by Exts. P7–P9. The 1st respondent failed to conduct a hearing or address legal contentions; earlier Court directions in Ext. P16 were not followed, prompting contempt proceedings. Ext. P7 indicates pre-2008 land conversion with a transmission line passing through, and the LLMC had not made a final decision, contrary to Ext. P17. The petitioner seeks setting aside Ext. P17 and fresh consideration as per Ext. P16 and Pradeep Kumar VG (Dr.) v. RDO, Malappuram. The petitioner prays for relief through timely reconsideration with opportunity of hearing.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Data Bank classification is appropriate and should be maintained. They reference Ext. P7’s findings and LLMC communications, arguing proper procedure and reliance on official reports to justify Ext. P17. They emphasize the need to balance infrastructure development with land-use classifications and argue that Ext. P17 reflected a reasoned decision aligned with statutory schemes and LLMC inputs; the petition should be dismissed or the relief limited to the extent consistent with the data bank framework.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pradeep Kumar VG (Dr.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram	2021 (5) KHC 111	Positive	Cited as controlling precedent guiding the direction to reconsider Ext. P6 in light of prior judgments and LLMC/Ext. P9 evidence; the court adopts the approach set in this decision.

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 P K Baby v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and others 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 N.NAGARESH`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 17664 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` P K BABY AGED 71 YEARS PALIYETH HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM, VADAVUKODE P O, PUTHENKURISHU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADUTALUK, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682310 BY ADVS. VARUGHESE M EASO VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686661`** - **`2 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683542`** - **`3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PUTHENKURISHU VILLAGE, VADAVUKODE P O, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682310`** - **`4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, PUTHEN KURISHU KRISHIBHAVAN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682308`** - **`5 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ( LA) FOR POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA`** - **`OFFICE OF THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, KAKKANADU P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030`** - **`6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682030`** ## **`SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.17664 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 1[st] day of June, 2023 The petitioner states that his properties are situated within the residential area of Puthencruz Town in Ernakulam District. In the year of 2003, the Government of India by letter dated 18.12.2003 entrusted the 5[th] respondent the task of installation of 400 KV High Tension Electrical Transmission Line from Koodamkulam to Pallikkara. The Government authorities had issued directions to cut and remove the entire trees in the petitioner’s property. 2. The petitioner states that later, these properties were erroneously included in Ext.P5 Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Aged trees were situated in Ext.P1 properties and the State Government Officials cut and removed the trees for installation of 400 KV High Tension Electrical Transmission Line from ``` WP(C) NO.17664 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` Koodamkulam to Pallikkara. 3 As the land is not a paddy land, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application in Form 5 to remove the land from Data Bank. The application was sent for report from the 4[th] respondent. The 1[st] respondent received Exts.P7, P8 and P9 reports from the statutory authorities and was convinced that Ext.P1 property cannot be included in the Data Bank. But, the 1[st] respondent failed to conduct any hearing or to consider the legal contentions raised by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.(C) No. 7685 of 2022 before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P11 and rejected the prayer in Ext.P6 to exclude the property from Ext.P5 Data Bank. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C) No.21854 of 2022. After considering the entire issue, this Court passed Ext.P16 judgment in W.P.(C) No.21854 of 2022 setting aside Ext.P11 and directing the 1[st] respondent to consider Ext.P6 application ``` WP(C) NO.17664 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` afresh after taking into consideration Ext. P9 report and also Ext. P4 documents and in the light of the judgment in _**Pradeep Kumar VG (Dr.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram**_ . _[2021 (5) KHC 111]_ 5. The 1[st] respondent, however, disobeyed the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P16 judgment and the petitioner herein was compelled to move Contempt Case (C) No.337/2023 before this Court on 07.02.2023. But, the 1[st] respondent purposefully ignored the directions of this Court and issued Ext.P17 only to evade from the contempt proceedings. While issuing Ext.P17, the 1[st] respondent disowned the 4[th] respondent’s report, contends the petitioner. 6. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. ``` WP(C) NO.17664 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 8. Pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P16 judgment, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed Ext.P17 order on 03.03.2023, again rejecting the petitioner’s application for removing his land from Data Bank. 9. By Ext.P16 judgment, this Court directed the 1[st] respondent to consider Ext.P6 application afresh, taking into consideration Ext.P9 report of the Agricultural Officer, Ext.P4 document and in the light of the judgment in _**Pradeep Kumar V.G (Dr.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram**_ (supra). 10. Ext.P7 report submitted by the Agricultural Officer would show that the land in question was converted prior to 2008 and there is an electric tower line passing through the middle of the property. Ext.P7 would also show that there is no paddy cultivation anywhere near the property. Ext.P7 report of ``` WP(C) NO.17664 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` the Agricultural Officer is based on the report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) 11. In Ext.P17 order, the Revenue Divisional Officer had observed that the LLMC has not taken any decision on the land in question. Ext.P7 report of the Agricultural Officer would show that the said conclusion of the Revenue Divisional Officer is not correct. The 1[st] respondent has also concluded in Ext.P7 that the LLMC has informed through telephone that the Committee has not met. The pleadings in the writ petition would show that the said communication is not correct. 12. Ext.P4 proceedings of the Special Tahsildar (LA) PGCIL, Kakkanad would indicate that the Special Tahsildar has passed order on 29.01.2019 pointing out that the District Collector has approved Detailed Valuation Statement (DVS) on account of damages sustained to the crops/trees en-route Edamon-Kochi 400 KV Transmission Line of Puthencruz Village to the petitioner. The loss is assessed as Rs.1,53,453/-. Ext.P4/2 notice under Indian Telegraph Act, ``` WP(C) NO.17664 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` 1885 dated 10.02.2011 would show that there were grown up trees like Anjili-2, Pongilium-1, Mango-2, Vatta-6, Coconut-11 Arecanut-30, Theragam-1, Pala-1, Kappa-150 in the property. These are matters germane for consideration of the application of the petitioner. 13. In view of the facts as stated above, I am of the opinion that Ext.P17 is liable to be set aside and the 1[st] respondent shall reconsider the application strictly in the light of Ext.P16 judgment. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P17 and directing the 1[st] respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon within a period of two months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/ **N.NAGARESH** ## **JUDGE** hmh ``` WP(C) NO.17664 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17664/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** - **`Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO 3170/1983 DATED 05/09/1983 OF PUTHENCRUZE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE`** - **`Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12/04/2021`** - **`Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT P1 AND P2`** - **`Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO KE 333/10 DATED 29/01/2019 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS`** - **`Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK PREPARED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT 2008`** - **`Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10/12/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF REPORT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. 364/2021 DATED 17/12/2021`** - **`Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/12/2021 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/08/2021 IN WP © NO 16715 OF 2020`** - **`Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A1311392/2021/KDS DATED 15/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07/06/2022 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAN NO 007108963202223 M DATED 07/06/2022`** - **`Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/06/2022 IN WP © NO 7685 OF 2022`** - **`Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT`** ``` WP(C) NO.17664 OF 2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` DATED 13/10/2022 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN WP (C) NO 21854 OF 2022 Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/11/2022 IN WP (C) NO 21854 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P17TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A13-8734/2022 DATED 03-03-2023 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ```