SUJA JACOB v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM & OTHERS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 30265 OF 2013** ## **PETITIONER:** SUJA JACOB, W/O.JACOB MATHEW, KANNAKUZHYATHU HOUSE, THOTTAMON P.O., RANNNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 645. 3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISED COMMITTEE), OFFICE OF THE RDO, ADOOR, PIN - 691 523. 4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER (CONVENER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE), KRISHI BHAVAN, RANNI - THOTTAMON, UTHIMOODU, RANNY, PIN - 689 672, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5 ANISH KUMAR S/O.GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR, VADAKKE CHENNANICKAL, THOTTAMON, RANNI P.O., RANNI TALUK, PIN - 689 672, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6 HARINATHAN NAIR S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, CHARIVUKALAYIL HOUSE, EDAKKULAM MURI, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 7 JYOTHISH E.G. S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, PATHALIL HOUSE, MANDIRAM P.O., RANNI WP(C) NO. 30265 OF 2013 2 TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH T.R., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JUSTUS SRI.V.SETHUNATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 30265 OF 2013 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **-----------------------------W.P.(C).No.30265 of 2013** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of December, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: _“(i) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to issuance of Exhibit P9 and quash the same;_ _(ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to reclaim the 10 cents of paddy land owned by her, located in Sry.No. 446 /2A of Ranny Village, in accordance with Exhibit P4;_ _(iii) Direct the 3rd respondent to re-fix the time-limit fixed in condition No.3 of Exhibit P4;_ _(iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction that is deemed fit to be passed in the facts and circumstance of this case;”[SIC]_ ## 2. Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 10 cents of paddy land situated in WP(C) NO. 30265 OF 2013 4 Sy.No.446 / 2A of Ranny Village of Pathanamthitta District. It is the case of the petitioner that, she and her family do not own any house and they do not own any other land suitable for constructing a residential house. The eastern boundary of the said property is a public road. In the circumstances petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'Act') seeking permission to reclaim the land, for constructing a residential house. Ext.P3 was allowed as per Ext.P4 order. However Ext.P4 order was challenged by respondents 5 to 7 by filing a revision before the 1[st] respondent as evident by Ext.P5. The 1[st] respondent as per Ext.P9 order, set aside Ext.P4 order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner WP(C) NO. 30265 OF 2013 5 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. There is no appearance for respondents 5 to 7. 4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that, as per Section 9(6) of the Act, any person aggrieved by the decision of the District Level Authorised Committee, may prefer an appeal before the Collector within thirty days from the receipt of the decision. Thereafter the Collector shall take a decision thereon within one month from the date of receipt of the appeal and the decision of the Collector shall be final. There is no revisional jurisdiction given to the 1[st] respondent, is the contentions. The Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the stand taken by the 1[st] respondent is justifiable and there is nothing to interfere with the same. 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. Ext.P4 WP(C) NO. 30265 OF 2013 6 is an order passed by the District Level Authorized Committee. A perusal of Section 9(6) of the Act will show that the aggrieved person can file only an appeal before the Collector against the decision of the District Level Authorized Committee and the decision of the Collector will be final. This point is considered by this Court in _**Bhasi T.B. v. State of Kerala and others**_ [2019 (5) KHC 100]. In the above case, this Court observed that the decision of the District collector rendered in an appeal can not be challenged in a revision filed before the Government and the remedy of the aggrieved party is only to file a writ petition before this Court. In such circumstances, whatever may be the reason mentioned in Ext.P9, I am of the opinion that, the same is legally unsustainable and therefore, Ext.P9 is to be set aside. 6. It is contended by the Government Pleader that the revision is considered by the WP(C) NO. 30265 OF 2013 7 Government based on Ext.P6 judgment. This Court only directed to consider the revision and pass appropriate orders. The maintainability of the revision is not considered by this Court while passing Ext.P6. As per the statute, there is no provision to entertain a revision by the Government. In such circumstances, I think that contention will not stand. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per condition No.3 in Ext.P4, the petitioner has to reclaim the property within six months and the time limit may be extended because the petitioner has not reclaimed the property because of the pendency of this writ petition. If that is the case, the petitioner has to appraoch the 3[rd] respondent with a representation and there can be a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to consider the same in accordance to law, after giving notice to respondents 5 to 7. WP(C) NO. 30265 OF 2013 8 Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner: i. Ext.P9 order is set aside. ii. The petitioner is free to file a representation before the 3[rd] respondent for extending the time mentioned in Ext.P4 and if such a representation is received, the 3[rd] respondent will consider the same, after giving notice to respondents 5 to 7, as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO. 30265 OF 2013 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30265/2013** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2261/2011 OF RANNI SRO. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.1861476 DATED 12.07.2012. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE LLMC. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.4095/12/B4 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED 17.09.2012 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS NOS.5 TO 7. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.20968 OF 2012. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.22415/2012. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COIPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P5 REVISION PETITION. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE