Kerala High Court
Janaki Amma vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 1972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939
WP(C).No. 37663 of 2017
PETITIONER(S):
JANAKI AMMA
W/O A.R.NAIR (LATE), LUMINIGROW, KUNNATHOORMEDU,
PALAKKAD-1.
BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.A.ARUNA
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN:695001.
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD-678001.
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PALAKKAD-678001.
4. TAHSILDAR
PALAKKAD-678001.
5. VILLAGE OFFICER
PALAKKAD-III VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678001.
6. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD P.O.,
PALAKKAD-678001.
7. SECRETARY
PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD P.O.,
PALAKKAD-678001.
8. ACHUTHANANDAN S.P.
ANANDKRISHNA, SELVAPALAYAM, PALAKKAD-678001.
9. SMITHESH P., MELPAT HOUSE, SEKHARIPURAM, PALAKKAD-678010.
10. MOHAN BABU M,
15/510, DEVI NIVAS, SREENARAYANA COLONY,
KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678013.
R6,R 7 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
R6,R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU
R6,R 7 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.NIMOD
R8,R 10 BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
prp/
WP(C).No. 37663 of 2017 (G)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 8.9.1972 OF
SRO, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2008 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.7.2013 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
19.10.2013.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
26.2.2016.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
20.1.2016.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST ALONG WITH THE
RECEIPT DATED 5.9.2014.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, ERIMAYUR.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY FOT HE STOP MEMO DATED 29.7.2016.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.7.2016.
EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B3-2016/9332/9 500 I. DIS
DATED 2.7.2016.
EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.8.2017 IN WPC
NO.26414/2016.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.10.2017 FILED
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 21.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE
7TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
prp/
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.37663 OF 2017 (G)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P15 stop memo which proceeds on the assumption that the land belonging to the petitioner is a paddy land/wetland for the purposes of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act, 2008 [hereinafter referred to as the '2008 Act']. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, by Ext.P12 judgment, this court has already found that the land in question is 'garden land', and therefore, the land cannot be the subject matter of any proceedings under the 2008 Act. It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by a judgment dated 8.12.2017, in a Writ Appeal that was preferred against Ext.P12 judgment, the Division Bench has upheld Ext.P12 judgment by dismissing the appeal filed by the respondents therein. Taking note of the said submission, and finding that Ext.P12 judgment has since been affirmed by the Division Bench, I find that Ext.P15 stop memo cannot be legally sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition, by quashing Ext.P15 stop memo, W.P.(C).No.37663/2017 2 with consequential reliefs to the petitioner. In this connection, I also note the submission of the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Municipality that the Municipality is proposing to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner in accordance with the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013. Taking note of the said submission, I make it clear that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of any proposal being initiated by the respondent Municipality for land acquisition, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/5/3/18