Kerala High Court
Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25305 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SHAJI,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, SHANTHIPURATH (H),
THANNIYAM, PERINGOTTUKARA,
THRISSUR 680 565.
BY ADV RAJIT
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPT. THE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, THRISSUR 680 003.
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VADAKKUMURI VILLAGE OFFICE, KALLUR VADAKKUMURI, THRISSUR 680
317.
4 THE SECRETARY,
THANNIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PERINGOTTUKARA P.O.,
THRISSUR 680 565.
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR 680 020.
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, THANNIYAM, PERINGOTTUKARA,
THRISSUR 680 565.
7 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER, THANNIYAM,
PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR 680 565.
8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR 680 003.
SRI. B.S. SYAMANTHAK, GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25305 OF 2021
2
T.R.RAVI, J.
----------------------------------------
WP(C) NO.25305 OF 2021
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th .day of March, 2022
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Exts.P10 and P11. Ext.P10 is an
order issued by the 2nd respondent finding that the property
cannot be considered as 'purayidom'. Ext.P11 is an appellate
order wherein the District Collector has endorsed the view stated
in Ext.P10. It can be seen from Ext.P10 that the concerned Village
Officer and the Agricultural Officer who are arrayed as
respondents 3 and 6 in this writ petition had submitted reports
stating that the property is a 'purayidom'. It is also admitted that
the property is not included in the Data Bank. It is stated that
during the site visit, it was found that there were 40 coconut trees
in the property which were not yielding.
2. In such circumstances, I find that the conclusion in
Ext.P10 is faulty. The 2nd respondent ought to have given due
weightage to the reports submitted by respondents 3 and 6. The
6th respondent who is representing the Local Level Monitoring
WP(C) NO. 25305 OF 2021
Committee, who has been impleaded as the 7th respondent in the
writ petition is the authority under the statute to determine such
cases and the report of such an authority cannot be ignored by the
2nd respondent. The only reason stated is that the 2 nd respondent
had made a site visit and he has convinced himself that the
property could not be treated as 'purayidom'. A statement has
been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that
the mere fact that coconut trees are standing on the 'varamba' of
the property cannot lead to a conclusion that the property is not a
paddy land. It is stated that the report of the Agricultural Officer,
Thanniam in Ext.P9 regarding the nature of the land cannot be
taken into account as the land is seen to have been reclaimed
recently and that the mere presence of some coconut trees cannot
be taken as evidence of conversion before several years.
4. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the
respondent and having gone through the records produced before
this court, I am of the opinion that the issue requires a re-look.
5. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed.
Exts.P10 and P11 are set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to
reconsider the issue after giving due weightage to the reports
WP(C) NO. 25305 OF 2021
received from respondents 3 , 6 and 7 and if necessary after
obtaining a report of the KSREC. The petitioner shall make
arrangements for obtaining the KSREC report, if he is directed to
do so. Necessary orders shall be issued within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
sn
WP(C) NO. 25305 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25305/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1188/I/2018
OF SRO, ANTHIKKAD DATED 31.07.2018.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE DATED 19.09.2018.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA
BANK OF THE THANYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED
30.08.2019.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 24.10.2018.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2018.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
19.06.2019.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 21764/2019
OF THE THIS HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
26.08.2019.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE
VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 06.09.2019
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, THANNIYAM DATED 23.07.2019.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 07.12.2019.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 8TH
RESPONDENT DATED 21.04.2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
