Kerala High Court
Mariamma Baby vs The District Collector on 20 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 3315 OF 2014
PETITIONER/S:
MARIAMMA BABY
W/O. BABY, PUNCHAKONAM VEEDU, VELLACHAL, ELAMAD
P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM.
BY ADV SRI.B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM-691 013.
2 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ELAMADU VILLAGE, ELAMAD P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM
DISTRICT-691 539.
4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, POOYAPPALLY P.O.,
KOLLAM-691 537.
5 SMT. R. RAJEENA,
HASEENA HOUSE, EDAVAZHIKKAL, NETTAYAM P.O.,
ELAMAD VILLAGE, AYUR, KOLLAM-691 537.
OTHER PRESENT:
R1 TO 4 - SRI.JOBY JOSEPH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
R5 - SRI. T. S. RAJASENAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W. P. (C) No. 3315 of 2014
-2-
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following
reliefs:-
"i) To Call for the Records leading to Ext.P2 and P3 and
the proceedings against the Petitioner under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 from the 2nd
Respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate
writ, order or direction quashing the entire proceedings under the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008
against the Petitioner;
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to consider
and dispose of Ext.P7 Application within a stipulated time as
directed by this Hon'ble Court and to give permission to the
Petitioner to conduct Rubber Nursery in the property comprised
in Re-Sy.No:510/11 in Block No:29 of Elamadu Village covered
in Ext.P1 notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act 2008;
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd Respondent to
consider and dispose of Ext.P5 and P6 Applications within a
stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court and to effect
appropriate correction in the Basic Tax Register of the
Petitioner's Property comprised in Re-Sy. No:510/11 in Block
No:29 of Elamadu Village covered in Ext.P1 and to exonerate the
Petitioner from the proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy and Wet Land Act 2008;
W. P. (C) No. 3315 of 2014
iv) To declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get
permission to conduct Rubber Nursery from the 1st Respondent
and to effect appropriate correction in the Basic Tax Register of
the Property comprised in Re-Sy.No:510/11 in Block No:29 of
Elamadu Village covered in Ext.P1 from the 2 nd Respondent and
to exonerate from the proceedings under the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy and Wet Land Act 2008."
2. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 11.25 ares of
property comprised in resurvey No. 510/11 of Elamadu Village. The
said property was purchased by the petitioner as per sale deed No.
1382/1983 of Oyoor Sub Registry. The case of the petitioner is that
even though as per the basic tax records the property is a 'nilam', there
is no paddy cultivation in the area for the last seven years. Various
other contentions are also raised with respect to the development of the
property before the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
3. A detailed adjudication of the matter as is sought for in the
writ petition is not required since learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.
B. Mohan Lal fairly submitted that during the pendency of this writ
petition, application submitted before the Local Level Monitoring
Committee seeking removal of the property from the data bank was
dismissed. But he stated that the order is not served on him.
W. P. (C) No. 3315 of 2014
4. Once a paddy field is included in the data bank, the remedy
available to the petitioner is to seek removal of the property before the
LLMC prior to introduction of the proviso to Section 5(4) of the Act
2008. Whether the application is dismissed prior to the same by the
LLMC or subsequently by the Revenue Divisional Officer after
30.12.2017, it is for the petitioner to pursue further remedies, in
accordance with law.
In that view of the matter, I do not think anything survives to be
adjudicated in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to pursue any
action against the order passed by the LLMC / the Revenue Divisional
Officer.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY///
P. A. TO JUDGE
W. P. (C) No. 3315 of 2014
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3315/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF
THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR
2013-14 DTD.3.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.702/2013
DTD.26.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B10-28737/2013
DTD.13.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1715/2013
REGISTERED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DTD.9.1.2014 BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P3.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DTD.9.1.2014 BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DTD.24.1.2014 BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
