Kerala High Court
Louis Kuriakose vs Land Revenue Commissioner on 11 October, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 19TH ASWINA, 1941
WP(C).No.13626 OF 2019(C)
PETITIONER:
LOUIS KURIAKOSE, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. KURIAKOSE, RESIDING AT ARAKKATHAZHATH
HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM-682307.
BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
TRIVANDRUM-695033.
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORTKOCHI, PIN-682001.
3 CHIEF ENGINEER, ADMINISTRATION AND IRRIGATION,
PWD ROADS AND BRIDGES, TRIVANDRUM-695033.
4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD.
5 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION,
PIRAVOM-686664.
6 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
UDYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM-683207.
7 THAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.
8 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682307.
SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P16 order issued by the second respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), as per which, permission sought by him to create an approach road to his property comprised of in Re.Sy.No.69/2 in Manakunnam Village, Ernakulam District, has been rejected on the ground that if the petitioner is allowed to do so, he is likely fill up certain extents of paddy land or wet land which are included as such in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Paddy Land Act').
2. The petitioner says that Ext.P16 has been issued by the RDO without any thought, since he had earlier approached the fourth respondent - Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department seeking permission to construct a protection wall on the eastern boundary of his property for a length of 129 metres facing Konothupuzha river and that he was granted such permission through Ext.P1. He says that, thereafter, Ext.P3 agreement was entered into by him with the fifth respondent, as is evident from Ext.P3 and that he has also deposited the amounts required for such purpose. He says that, however, this property is completely landlocked without any access to it and therefore, that WP(C).No.13626 OF 2019(C) 3 he made an application for permitting him to create a temporary access, on an undertaking that it will be removed immediately after the construction is over. He says that when this application was not considered, he was forced to approach this Court and to obtain Exts.P11 and P14 judgments. He submits that, thereafter, the RDO issued Ext.P16 rejecting his application, without citing any tenable reason, except that there is a suspicion that the petitioner is likely to fill up paddy land or wet land. The petitioner prays, therefore, that Ext.P16 be set aside.
3. In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by Sri.Praveen K.Joy, the learned Government Pleader submitted that, as is clear from Ext.P16, the RDO has taken a decision within the ambit of the Paddy Land Act because the attempt of the petitioner appears to be to fill up certain paddy lands rather than making the construction as sought for by him and granted through Ext.P3. He says that the RDO had made an extensive evaluation of the materials and found that permission, as requested by the petitioner through his application, cannot be granted. He says, therefore, that the petitioner must approach the fourth respondent and seek further reliefs, rather than praying that the RDO be directed to give him permission to construct a road through the paddy WP(C).No.13626 OF 2019(C) 4 land.
4. In reply to the afore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as can be seen from Ext.P5 sketch, there is a drainage on the side of the petitioner's property and that if the Authorities allow the said drain to be covered with concrete slabs on a temporary basis, he will not require to fill up any land, as has been now apprehended by the RDO. He says that even this has not been considered by any of the Authorities and he prays, therefore, that Ext.P16 be set aside.
5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is obvious that even though the petitioner has been granted permission to construct a compound wall on the eastern side of his property, none of the Authorities appear to have taken a decision as to how the petitioner can bring the construction materials into this area. The property concerned appears to be a landlocked area with a drain on the one side and the suggestion now made by Sri.Praveen K.Joy, to cover the drainage with concrete slabs temporarily, also does not appear to have been considered by any of the Authorities.
6. I am, therefore, of the view that this is a matter which will certainly have to be considered by the concerned Authorities, since the petitioner cannot be asked to construct WP(C).No.13626 OF 2019(C) 5 without any approach road to bring the construction materials into his property.
In the result, I order this writ petition and leave liberty to the petitioner to immediately approach the fourth respondent with an apposite application seeking to install temporary slabs on the drain; and if this is done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the said Authority will consider the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and will issue an appropriate order thereon, after due verification of the site, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
If the petitioner is able to obtain an order to his benefit from the fourth respondent, then he will be at liberty to move the second respondent - RDO with such order, who thereupon will consider the same and issue appropriate orders ensuring that no part of any paddy land or wet land is converted. Such orders will be issued not later than two weeks from the date on which the recommendation of the fourth respondent is placed before him by the petitioner in terms of this judgment.
Stu Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
WP(C).No.13626 OF 2019(C)
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.08.2017 OF
THE 3rd RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION DATED 04.08.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS AGREEMENT 1/1778 OF ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION DATED 09.08.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TERM DEPOSIT IN TREASURY SAVING BANK DATED 09.08.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY RETAINING WALL FOUNDATION PLAN.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 17.09.2018 OF PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.08.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF PROPERTY ISSUED BY TALUK SURVEYOR DATED 22.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2018 IN WPC NO.34609/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2018 IN WPC 37554/2018.
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.12.2018 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2018 IN WP.42199/18 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 8.2.2019 OF 8TH RESPONDENT.
WP(C).No.13626 OF 2019(C) 7 EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.3.19 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE.