Kerala High Court
Josekutty John @ Jimmy vs State Of Kerala on 31 May, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 8180 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
JOSEKUTTY JOHN @ JIMMY
PAZHOOR HOUSE, AARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
JOSE MATHEW, S/O MATHEW, NEDIYAKALAYIL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.P.SANTHI
SMT.DHANYA BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND CONVENER
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN,
AARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM-686008
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.8180/2017
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.8180 of 2017
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. issue a writ of certiorari, or such other writ,
direction or order quashing Exhibit P3 as
arbitrary, illegal and unjust;
ii. declare that the petitioner's land is converted
land:
iii. issue such other writ, direction or order as is
deemed just and necessary in the facts, features
and circumstances of the case.
(SIC)
2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner in
possession and enjoyment of properties in survey Nos.112/1,
2, 3 and 9 measuring 58.65 ares, 4.85 ares, 47.65 ares and
6.85 ares in Arpookara Village, Kottayam Taluk, Kottayam
District. It is submitted that the land lies contiguously as one
single plot. The land Resurvey No.112/3 is recorded as
converted dry land, whereas the lands in Resurvey Nos.112/ 1,
2, 9 are recorded as Nilam. According to the petitioner, the
said classification was an over sight. The entire land is lying
contiguously as one single plot is the submission. Therefore, it
has become necessary to change the classification of the said
areas in the draft data bank as converted land, as otherwise it
will cause difficulties to the petitioner is the submission.
Hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation to the
2nd respondent. It is also submitted that the Revenue
Divisional Officer submitted a report that the land is not
suitable for agriculture, as evident by Ext.P1. Consequently
the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order rejecting the
application. Aggrieved by the same this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused Ext.P1. It will be better to
extract the relevant portion of Ext.P1:
"19/12/13-ന് സ്ഥല പരിശോധന നടത്തിയതിൽ 30
വർഷമായി നെൽകൃഷി ഇല്ലാതെ കിടക്കുന്ന സ്ഥലത്ത്
കായ്ഫലമുള്ള 15 തെങ്ങുകൾ അടക്കം തെങ്ങുകൃഷി നടത്തി
യിരിക്കുന്നു. 30 ഇഞ്ച് വണ്ണമുള്ള ഒരു ആഞ്ഞിലിമരവും,
പത്തോളം അക്കേഷ്യാമരങ്ങളും കാണപ്പെടുന്നു നീരൊഴുക്കിന്
തടസ്സമുളളതായി കാണു ന്നില്ല. പൂർവ്വസ്ഥിതിയിൽ ആക്കിയാലും
നെൽക്കൃഷിക്ക് സാദ്ധ്യത കാണുന്നില്ല."
5. Ext.P1 is dated 07.01.2014. Ext.P3 is subsequent to
Ext.P1. A perusal of Ext.P3 would show that the finding of the
Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext.P1 is not considered.
Moreover, the finding in Ext.P3 is contradictory to the finding
in Ext.P1. In such situation, I am of the considered opinion
that the matter is to be reconsidered by the 2 nd respondent. To
facilitate the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders, Ext.P3 can
be set aside.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with following
directions:
1. Ext.P3 is set aside.
2. The petitioner will take necessary steps
to get KSREC report by making
appropriate application before the 2nd
respondent and the 2nd respondent will
call for the same.
3. The 2nd respondent is directed to
reconsider the matter, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
in the light of Ext.P1, as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate, within three
months from the date of receipt of the
KSREC report.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8180/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7/1/2014
OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOTTAYAM
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
26/10/2015 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/1/2016
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
