Sibi Sudheesh v. State of Kerala and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 4TH MAGHA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 8248 OF 2013`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` MRS.SIBI SUDHEESH W/O.SUDHEESH.V.SEBASTIAN, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, THITTAMEL DESOM, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.ROY CHACKO SRI.K.C.VINCENT ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF LAND REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 695 001.` - `2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT STATE OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 695 001.` - `3 THE COMMISSIONER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES, STATE OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 695 001.` - `4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA. 689 001.` - `5 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THIRUVALLA. 689 016.` - `6 TAHSILDAR THIRUVALLA TALUK, THIRUVALLA. 689 016.` - `7 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOIPRAM.` -2- W.P.(C). No. 8248 of 2013 ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` -3- W.P.(C). No. 8248 of 2013 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** ====================================================== W.P.(C) No. 8248 of 2013 ============================================================= Dated this the 24[th] day of January, 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with following prayers: _(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and Ext.P7 orders examine the same and quash the same, holding the same as illegal, improper, unjust and unsustainable in view of the change of nature of property prior to the promulgation and coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland, 2008 by issuing writs in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorari or other appropriate writ in the interest of justice._ _(ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the 4[th] respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application in the light of entries of the Data Bank which is crucial and to pass orders afresh on Ext.P2 based on the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order specifically stressing the nature of the adjacent lands and the importance of the locality._ _(iii) Allow the petitioner to recover the full costs incurred for the institution and conduct of the writ petition from the respondents.” (sic)_ -4- W.P.(C). No. 8248 of 2013 2. It is the case of the petitioner that through sale deed No.1727/2005 of SRO, Vennikulam dated 29.12.2005, the petitioner purchased a property having an extent of 29.80 ares comprised in Re.Sy.No.160/2 of Koipram village in Block No.21 of Thiruvalla Taluk. The nature of the property is mentioned in the Basic Tax Register as Nilam. Hence, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order). Ext.P2 application was directed to be considered by this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment. It is the case of the petitioner that without considering Ext.P3, Ext.P4 order is passed by the District Collector to restore the property as paddy land. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 revision as per Section 28 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short the Act, 2008). The same was dismissed as per Ext.P7. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. W.P.(C). No. 8248 of 2013 -5- 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. 4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions raised in the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as per Ext.P8, which is the relevant portion of data bank, will show that the petitioner’s property is categorized as ‘Purayidam” with coconut trees. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of Ext.P8, the findings in Ext.P4 and P7 will not stand. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the mere inclusion of the property in the data bank as ‘Purayidam’ will not give any right to the petitioner. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. A perusal of Ext.P8 would show that the property of the petitioner is now categorized as ‘purayidam’, Since the property is categorized as ‘purayidam’ -6- W.P.(C). No. 8248 of 2013 the provisions of the Act, 2008 is not applicable. Moreover, Ext.P2 application was filed as per clause 6(2) of the KLU Order on 12.12.2011. In the light of the judgment of this Court in **Jeo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and another [2019 (4) KHC 400],** if any application under the KLU Order is pending before 31.12.2017, the same is to be considered in accordance to the provisions of the KLU Order. If that is the case, according to me, the impugned orders are to be set aside and there can be a direction to the District Collector to consider Ext.P2, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in **Jeo Peter’s** case (supra). Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: 1. Exts.P4 and P7 are set aside. 2. The 4[th] respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P2, in the light of Ext.P8 and also in the light of the principle -7- W.P.(C). No. 8248 of 2013 laid down by this Court in **Jeo Peter v. Revenue** as **Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and another** expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. Before passing final orders, the 4[th] respondent will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. **SD/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** das -8- W.P.(C). No. 8248 of 2013 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8248/2013`** ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 17.03.2008. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 12.12.2011 SUBMITTED ON 13.12.2011. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2012 IN W.P[C]NO.2417/2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2012 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5- THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 15.06.2012 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6-TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2012 IN W.P[C]NO.14618/2012 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P7- TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2012 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ```