Sainaba and Others Vs. Srirangan and Others

Sainaba and Others vs Srirangan and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 05, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1094786

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1094786
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice S.Siri Jagan
Decided On: Oct 05, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sainaba and Others

Respondent

Srirangan and Others

Excerpt

.....dated this the 5th day of october, 2013 judgment the case of the petitioner is that the property covered by exts.p2 and p3 belonging to the petitioner is not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as envisaged under sections 2(xii) or 2 (xviii) of act 28 of 2008. even though the property is a dry land with much improvements therein, it happens to be described as 'nilam' in the btr. the request made by the petitioner before the first respondent by filing ext.p8 has not yielded any positive result and hence the writ petition, for directing the first respondent to effect necessary correction in the btr, based on ext.p6 certificate showing the property as dry land/'paramba'.2. heard the learned special government pleader for the respondents, who submits on instruction that the property has not been included as paddy land or wet land in the draft data bank register prepared by the concerned authorities.3. the law is now settled that, if the petitioner's property is not included in the data bank register, act 28 of 2008 cannot have any application as held by this court in jaffarkhan v. kochumarakkar (2012 (1) klt491.4. in such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for w.p.(c).no.18125 of 2013 2 enabling him to make use of the property for purposes other than agricultural purpose has necessarily to be dealt with under the relevant provisions of the kerala land utilization order. in the said circumstances, the petitioner is relegated to approach the additional 4th respondent by filing necessary representation in this regard and, if such a representation is filed within two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in the light of clause 6 of klu and also in the light of the observations made by a division bench of this court in praveen v. land revenue commissioner (2010(2) klt617 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SATURDAY, THE5H DAY OF OCTOBER201313TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 18125 of 2013 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:-: ------------ SANJAY KUMAR PILLAI, FLAT NO.7CD, OJAS APRTMENT, MULLASSERI CANAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 011, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT: KARAKKATUKUNNEL HOUSE, RANNY PERUNAD P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENTS:-: -------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI - 682 002.

2. THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PARUR - 683 513.

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ALANGAD - 683 515. ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED ADDL.R4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER

DATED28.13 IN IA.NO.10451/13. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (REVENUE) SRI. P.K. SOYUZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0510-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18125 of 2013 (M) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1703/07 OF ALANGAD SUB REGISTRY. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1704/07 OF ALANGAD SUB REGISTRY. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3262/07 OF ALNGAD SUB REGISTRY. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE KADUNGALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED1808.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KADUNGALLUR TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED2607.2012 ISSUED BY THE1T RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ---------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE cl P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

...................................................... W.P.(C).No.18125 of 2013 ...................................................... Dated this the 5th day of October, 2013 JUDGMENT

The case of the petitioner is that the property covered by Exts.P2 and P3 belonging to the petitioner is not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as envisaged under Sections 2(xii) or 2 (xviii) of Act 28 of 2008. Even though the property is a dry land with much improvements therein, it happens to be described as 'Nilam' in the BTR. The request made by the petitioner before the first respondent by filing Ext.P8 has not yielded any positive result and hence the writ petition, for directing the first respondent to effect necessary correction in the BTR, based on Ext.P6 certificate showing the property as dry land/'paramba'.

2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, who submits on instruction that the property has not been included as paddy land or wet land in the draft Data Bank Register prepared by the concerned authorities.

3. The law is now settled that, if the petitioner's property is not included in the Data Bank Register, Act 28 of 2008 cannot have any application as held by this Court in Jaffarkhan v. Kochumarakkar (2012 (1) KLT491.

4. In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for W.P.(C).No.18125 of 2013 2 enabling him to make use of the property for purposes other than agricultural purpose has necessarily to be dealt with under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is relegated to approach the additional 4th respondent by filing necessary representation in this regard and, if such a representation is filed within two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in the light of Clause 6 of KLU and also in the light of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010(2) KLT617 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The proceedings shall be finalized at the earliest and at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the order in I.A.No.10451/2013 before the additional 4th respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. cl

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Sainaba and Others vs Srirangan and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice S.Siri Jagan