Jeen Victor vs Agricultural Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 9734 Ker

W.P.(C) No.20214/2017                    1



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

               FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944

                              WP(C) NO. 20214 OF 2017

PETITIONER:

               JEEN VICTOR
               AGED 36 YEARS
               MOOLAMKUZHIYIL VEEDU, EZHUPUNNA.
               BY ADV SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM


RESPONDENTS:

     1         AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
               KRISHI BHAVAN, EZHUPUNNA.
     2         LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
               EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR.
     3         STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF
               GOVERNEMNT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.



               By SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.20214/2017                         2



                                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

i). Writ of certiorari or appropriate writ direction or order calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit-P5 by which petitioner's Exhibit-Pl application for permission to construct a house in the property 08.70 ares of land in Sy,No360/19.2 of Ezhupunna Village of Cherthala Taluk rejected be quashed.

ii)Declare that the decision of the Local Level Monitoring committee of Ezhupunna Panchayath refusing permission as extend of the property is more than 10 cents is illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable.

iii)Writ or mandamus or appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondents to accept the petitioner's Exhibit-P1 application and grant permission as sought for in the application to the extend permissible by law.

iv)Such other orders as deems fit to meet the ends of justice and award costs of this proceedings.

2. Petitioner is apparently an owner of an extent of 8.70 Ares of land comprised

in Sy.No360/19.2 of Ezhupunna Village, Cherthala Taluk. Petitioner has submitted an

application seeking recommendation for reclamation of the said entire extent of paddy

land, for construction of a residential building by virtue of the proviso to section 5(3) (i)

of the Act, 2008. The said application was rejected by the LLMC as per Exhibit P5 order

dated 8th May, 2017 holding that the petitioner has sought for exemption for more than

10 cents of property, and therefore, the application was returned to the petitioner . It is

thus challenging the legality and correctness of Ext.P5, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.D.Somasundaram, learned

Senior Government Pleader Sri.Joby Joseph for the respondents and perused the

pleadings and materials on record.

4. The subject issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is governed

by the proviso to section 5(3)(i) & (ii) of the Act, 2008, which reads thus; as it

existed then:

"5(3) The Committee shall have the following powers, namely:-

(i) Subject to the provisions of this Act, to recommend to the State Level Committee or District Level Authorised Committee, as the case may be, for the reclamation of paddy land, for public purpose or for construction of residential building for the owner of the paddy land. Provided that the Committee shall not recommend for filling of paddy land of more than ten cents in a Panchayat or five cents in a Municipality / Corporation, as the case may be, for the construction of residential building for the owner of the paddy land;

(ii) to inspect the paddy land situated within the jurisdiction of the Committee to monitor whether the provisions of this Act are being complied with and to report to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding violations, if any, of the provisions of this Act;

(This provision is amended as per amendment act 29 of 2018, as per which the extent is shown as 4.04 ares)

5. Therefore, on an analysis of the proviso, it can be seen that the maximum extent

that could be recommended for reclamation by the Local Level Monitoring Committee then

was 10 cents in the Panchayat area. Admittedly, petitioner has sought for

recommendation of the area exceeding the above. Therefore, it cannot be said that

rejection of the application by the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the return of the

same to the petitioner is in any manner arbitrary or illegal, liable to be interfered with by

this Court exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Being so, the relief sought for against Ext.P6 order is rejected. However, the writ

petition is disposed of leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the Local

Level Monitoring Committee concerned with an application confining the area to 4.04 Ares,

and if any such application is filed, I have no reason to think that the Local Level

Monitoring will not consider the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with

law , and as contemplated under the said provision.

Sd/-

                                                        SHAJI P.CHALY

 smv                                                         JUDGE



                        APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20214/2017

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1              A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN THE FORMAT.
EXHIBIT P2              A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE
                        PRESCRIBED FORMAT.
EXHIBIT P3              A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1598 DATED 18.8.2015.
EXHIBIT P4              A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE
                        APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P5              A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. EPN 25/2017-18 DATED
                        08.5.2017 ISSUED IN THE PETITIONER.