Kerala High Court
Shamsuddin vs State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2011
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1896 of 2011()
1. SHAMSUDDIN, S/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :28/06/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.1896 of 2011
---------------------------------------
Dated this 28th day of June, 2011
ORDER
Petitioner faces trial before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri (for short, "the CJM") in C.C.No.179 of 2010 for offence punishable under Sec.23 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, "the Act"). The case arose on Annexure-A2, complaint dated 21.05.2010 filed by the second respondent alleging that petitioner reclaimed 10cents of land in R.S.No.200/4 of Ozhur village in violation of the provisions of the said Act and thereby committed offence under Sec.23 of the Act. The second respondent filed the complaint based on a letter dated 15.06.2009 of the Village Officer concerned reporting violation. It is contended that since no data bank was published even as on the date of complaint, prosecution under Sec.23 of the Act cannot stand. Reliance is placed on the decision in Firose Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram and Anr. (2011(1) KHC 615).
2. Learned Public Prosecutor after taking instruction has submitted that the data bank has not so far been published in the manner prescribed.
Crl.M.C.No.1896 of 2011 -: 2 :-
3. As per Sec.5(4)(i) of the Act, the committee formed under the said provision is to prepare a data bank in respect of the locality and, that data bank is to be published in the manner prescribed. Going by Sec.23 of the Act, though for other purposes such as restoration of the land etc; publication of data bank may not be necessary, for the purpose of prosecution it is necessary that the land allegedly converted must have been a notified land. In this case, the data bank has not so far been published. If that be so, in the light of the decision referred supra prosecution against petitioner cannot stand and is liable to be quashed.
Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Cognizance taken and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.179 of 2011 of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri are quashed.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-