Kerala High Court
George Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.27749 OF 2019(P)
PETITIONERS:
1 GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE THOMAS, CHETTIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, 43/607,
PALARIVATTOM.P.O., PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPILLY SOUTH
VILLAGE, KANAYANUR TALUK, PIN-682035.
2 POULINE GEORGE, AGED 66 YEARS
W/O.GEORGE THOMAS, CHETTIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, 43/607,
PALARIVATTOM.P.O., PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPILLY SOUTH
VILLAGE, KANAYANUR TALUK, PIN-682035.
BY ADV. SRI.BENNY VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN-682030.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN-682001.
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
COCHIN CORPORATION, EDAPPILLY SOUTH VILLAGE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER/AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, COCHIN CORPORATION OFFICE, VYTILA,
ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-682019.
SRI.MANURAJ K.J, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.27749 OF 2019(P)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court impugning Ext.P12 decision of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short 'the Paddy Land Act'), refusing to entertain their application for removal of their property from the draft Data Bank merely saying that they do not deem it necessary to consider the same at this time solely because the petitioners intend to use this property for commercial purposes and not for residential purposes.
2. The petitioners say that Ext.P12 is untenable in law, particularly on account of Ext.P9 judgment, which they had earlier obtained from this Court, as also Exts.P10 and P11 reports of the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer respectively, whereby their property has been found to be not liable to be included in the Data Bank. The petitioners, therefore, pray that Ext.P12 be set aside.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents submits that, as is clear from Ext.P12, the LLMC has refused to consider the petitioners' application only because they intend to use the property as a car park and WP(C).No.27749 OF 2019(P) 3 not for residential purposes. He says, therefore, Ext.P12 cannot be found to be at fault and prays that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on the afore lines, it is now well settled, through a catena of judgments, that the inclusion or otherwise of a property in the Data Bank is not dependent upon the manner in which it is proposed to be used or is being presently used, but solely on the criterion whether it remains as a paddy land factually on the date on which the Paddy Land Act came into force.
5. In this case, the petitioners assert, on the basis of certain materials, that this property had been converted much prior to 2008 but that it has been included in the Data Bank incorrectly. It is, therefore, up to the LLMC, going by Rule 4(6) of the Paddy Land Act, to consider this and take a decision thereon, without being guided by the manner in which the property will be put to use in the future.
In the afore circumstances, I set aside Ext.P12 and direct the LLMC to reconsider the petitioners' application, adverting to Ext.P9 judgment as also Exts.P10 and P11 reports, and take a final decision thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this WP(C).No.27749 OF 2019(P) 4 judgment.
I make it clear that since I have not considered the entitlement of the petitioners to any relief affirmatively, it is up to the LLMC to examine and assess all necessary and relevant inputs, including satellite images to be obtained and reports of the competent Authorities before finalising proceedings as directed above. Needless to say, the petitioners will remit the expenses for obtaining the satellite images from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, as and when called upon to do, for this purpose.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.27749 OF 2019(P)
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1830/92 OF
EDAPPILLY SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5588/94 OF
EDAPPILLY SRO.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE
PAYMENT OF TAX FOR THE 4.35 ARES IN THANDAPER NO.10741, ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE EDAPPALLY NORTH, DATED 13.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF TAX FOR THE 3.32 ARES IN THANDAPPER NO.8183 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE EDAPPALLY NORTH, DATED 13.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK SHOWING INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR KANAYANNOR, DATED 1.7.2016.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 31.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P7 APPLICATION DATED 1.11.2017. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE WPC.41194/2018 DATED 18.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10.1.2019.
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE DATED 20.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE.
WP(C).No.27749 OF 2019(P)
6