Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Firose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 11 February, 2011

Kallingal Manzoor vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 20 June, 2011

2. Sec.5(4)(i) of the Act requires a committee to be formed at various levels for preparation of data bank. Under the Rules framed under the Act a draft data bank is to be published at various levels inviting objections. Thereafter the final data bank is to be published. Under sec.23 of the Act, it is only when offence is committed in respect of land notified that prosecution would lie. This Court found so in Firose Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram and Anr. (supra). In the present case the Village Officer has given a statement signed on 14.05.2010 regarding alleged conversion. Hence assuming that the alleged conversion was prior to 14.05.2010, as submitted by learned Public Prosecutor the data bank has not so far been published in the manner prescribed, as required under Sec.5(4)(i) of the Act. If that be so, prosecution against petitioner cannot stand. It is liable to be quashed.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Chitharanjan vs The State Of Kerala Represented By The on 11 April, 2011

Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.12 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri facing trial for offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 23 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act (for short, "the Act"). Case arose on a complaint preferred by respondent No.2, the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is alleged that on 04.11.2009 petitioners in violation of Section 3 of the Act have converted/reclaimed their paddy land and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 23 of the Act. The complaint was preferred on 20.01.2010. Petitioners contend that since there is no publication of any notification concerning the data bank, no prosecution would lie under Section 23 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Firose v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2011 (1) KLT 868). I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Mundavalappil Rukhiya vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 17 June, 2011

Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.209 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri (for short, "the CJM") for offence punishable under Section 23 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act (for short, "the Act"). The CJM has taken cognizance on Annexure-A, complaint preferred by first the respondent. It is alleged that petitioner converted 11.46 cents of paddy land in R.S.No.23/3 of Thalakkad Village without authority and thus committed offence as above stated. Petitioner requests to quash proceeding against him contending that even on the date of complaint (06.08.2010) no data bank has been prepared or published as required under Section 5(4)(i) of the Act. It is contended by learned counsel that in that situation a complaint is not maintainable and the learned CJM was not correct in taking cognizance of the alleged offence in view of the decision of this Court in Firose v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2011 (1) KHC 615).
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Kunnathiyil Musthafa vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 28 June, 2011

Petitioner faces trial before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri (for short, "the CJM") in C.C.No.100 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 Sy.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. 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).
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Shamsuddin vs State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2011

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).
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

B.Reghuram Shetty vs State Of Kerala on 22 June, 2023

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who submits that the prosecution proceedings initiated at the instance of the village officer cannot be sustained under law. He would further contend that the action is also violative of the law laid down in Firose v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2011 (1) KLT 868], wherein it was held that prosecution can stand only if conversion is after notification is published. According to the learned counsel, the complaint was registered on 28.6.2019, and the Data Bank was published only on 22.1.2021.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Shameer vs District Collector

3. Therefore, substantially the contention is that the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the concerned authorities have not issued a notification under Rule 4(2)(b) of the Act with respect to the land WPC.14421/2012 - 2- comprised in Sy. Nos.93/6 and 93/8B of Ottapalam - I Village. The petitioners are also relying upon the judgments of this Court in Kaipadath Property Development Company (Pvt) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (1) KLT 526) and Firose v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2011 (1) KLT 868). All the contentions raised by the petitioners will be considered by the District Collector before passing orders.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T R Nair - Full Document

K.P.Hussain vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 29 March, 2011

Petitioner is accused in C.C.No.56 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri facing trial for offence punishable under Sec.23 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (for short, "the Act"). Complaint was preferred by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 16.3.2010 alleging that petitioner converted/reclaimed his paddy land by filling it with soil which came to the notice of the authorities on 12.2.2010. According to the first respondent, the said act of petitioner amounted to violation of Sec.3 of the Act and hence, he is punishable under Sec.23 of the said Act. Learned counsel, placing reliance on the decision in Firose v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram and another [2011 (1) KHC 615] contends that the alleged conversion/reclamation of the Crl.M.C. No.756 of 2011 -: 2 :- land if any was before the data-bank was prepared and published by the Local Monitoring Committee as required under Sec.5(4) of the Act. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the local level monitoring committee met on 14.12.2009, prepared the data-bank on 6.9.2010 but, it was published in the gazatte only on 22.9.2010.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document
1