P.Mani Vs. State of Kerala

P.Mani vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 26, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1135900

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/1135900
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
Decided On: Mar 26, 2014
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

P.Mani

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....crops are destroyed by the wild animals and that the weapon is essential for crop protection.3. the state has filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein they have stated that as per the report of the police, there is no threat to the crops of the petitioner from wild animals. they have also taken a contention that the petitioner failed to point out any ground to interfere with ext.p1 order issued by the 3rd respondent.4. arguments have been heard.5. admittedly, the petitioner is an agriculturist. the tahsildar has reported that there is threat from the wild w.p.(c) no. 16088/2012 :3. : animals against agricultural crops. it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner who is holding a gun was already granted licence and the present application was only for renewal. the reasoning pointed out by the police that at present there is no threat of wild animals does not appear to be a sufficient reason. i see no valid force in the reasoning adopted by the commissioner for land revenue to hold that only if the petitioner proves the actual extent of his land, he is entitled to get the licence renewed. as the respondents do not have a case that the intention of the petitioner is to use the gun for any unlawful purpose, this court is of the definite view that there is absolutely no reason for denying the renewal of the licence which was already granted to the petitioner. therefore, this writ petition is allowed. the 3rd respondent is directed to renew the licence of the petitioner dehors exts.p1 and p2. sd/- a. v. ramakrishna pillai, judge. w.p.(c) no. 16088/2012 :4. : rv

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE26H DAY OF MARCH20145TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 16088 of 2012 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.MANI, AGED47YEARS, S/O.T.KUNHAMBU NAIR, PARVATHI NILAYAM, MUNNAD, MUNNAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 2. COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE, MUSEUM JUNCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD - 671 121. BY ADV. SRI. P. FAZIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2603-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16088 of 2012 (I) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : ----------------------------- EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO D2/2009/17692/14 DTD165/10 BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DTD265/2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. K DIS201153333/14/D2 DTD092011 BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. rv A.- V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2012 - Dated-this the 26th day of March, 2014. - -W.P.(C). -No.-16088-of - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT

The petitioner has come up before this Court for a direction to the 3rd respondent to renew the Gun licence of the petitioner in the light of the decision reported in 2005 (2) KLT645and for quashing Exts.P1 and P2.

2. The petitioner who was holding a Gun licence submitted an application for renewal of his licence No. 3719/KAS. The matter was referred to the Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod for enquiry and report. The Superintendent of Police reported that there is objection in renewing the gun licence which is in possession of the petitioner from the security point of view as at present there is no attack of wild animals towards the agricultural crops of the applicant and there is no genuine need of a gun for protecting the crops. The Tahsildar, Kasaragod reported that the petitioner possess 8.62 acres of land and there is threat from the wild animals to the agricultural crops of the petitioner and the weapon is necessary for the protection of W.P.(C) No. 16088/2012 :

2. : crops from wild animals. A personal hearing of the petitioner was conducted by the Additional District Magistrate. However, the Additional District Magistrate rejected the request by Ext.P1. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue and the same was dismissed vide Ext.P2 stating that the petitioner has not produced any document to support his case that he is having extensive agricultural land, that the agricultural crops are destroyed by the wild animals and that the weapon is essential for crop protection.

3. The State has filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein they have stated that as per the report of the police, there is no threat to the crops of the petitioner from wild animals. They have also taken a contention that the petitioner failed to point out any ground to interfere with Ext.P1 order issued by the 3rd respondent.

4. Arguments have been heard.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is an agriculturist. The Tahsildar has reported that there is threat from the wild W.P.(C) No. 16088/2012 :

3. : animals against agricultural crops. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner who is holding a gun was already granted licence and the present application was only for renewal. The reasoning pointed out by the police that at present there is no threat of wild animals does not appear to be a sufficient reason. I see no valid force in the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner for Land Revenue to hold that only if the petitioner proves the actual extent of his land, he is entitled to get the licence renewed. As the respondents do not have a case that the intention of the petitioner is to use the gun for any unlawful purpose, this Court is of the definite view that there is absolutely no reason for denying the renewal of the licence which was already granted to the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The 3rd respondent is directed to renew the licence of the petitioner dehors Exts.P1 and P2. sd/- A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE. W.P.(C) No. 16088/2012 :

4. : rv

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties P.Mani vs State of Kerala Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.V.Ramakrishna Pillai