Sona Babu Vs. State of Kerala

Sona Babu vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 10, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1165774

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/1165774
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque
Decided On: Oct 10, 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

Sona Babu

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....has power under kluo to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. the collector is defined under clause 2(a) of the kluo which includes the revenue divisional officer as well. though the property is reclaimed before the enactment of the act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the kluo or after its commencement, permission from the collector is necessary for utilising the above land for any other w.p(c).no.8017 of 2014 b2purposes. this court in praveen k. v. land revenue commissioner, thiruvananthapuram and others [2010 (2) khc499 held as follows: "if an application is made under the kerala land utilisation order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. if the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the klu." 3. in sunil v. killimangalam panjal 5th ward, nellulpadaka samooham [2012 (4) klt511 another division bench of this court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. in praveen's case (supra) also this court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the kluo has to be dealt with by the collector.4. it is submitted that the properties of the petitioner mentioned in ext.p1 have been reclaimed before the act 28 of w.p(c).no.8017 of 2014 b32008. it is also submitted that in draft data bank these properties are entered as reclaimed land.5. in view of the above, the property cannot be treated as a paddy or wet land under the act 28 of 2008. it is held in joseph john vs. land revenue commissioner (2014(1) klt706 that even if the land was reclaimed before the act 28 of 2008, it is not a bar to consider the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE FRIDAY, THE10H DAY OF OCTOBER201418TH ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8017 of 2014 (B) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- SONA BABU, THUMBIL AMBUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVATHUKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM-636003. BY ADVS.SMT.K.P.SANTHI SMT.BEENA JOHN SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN (MUTHUKULAM) SRI.RILGIN V.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 001.

3. THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR-680 001.

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE-680 003. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.SOYUZ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1010-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RVS. WP(C).No. 8017 of 2014 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED11.2014 SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENTS2TO4 EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED1007/2014 OF THE2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------ NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE rvs. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

========================= W.P(C).No.8017 of 2014 B ============================ Dated this the 13th day of October, 2014 JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to change the entries in the Basic Tax Register and Village records with respect to the property owned by the petitioner and to make use of the land for other purposes. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.12 ares, 10.12 ares, 12.96 ares and 1.94 ares in Survey Nos.750/pt, 753/pt and 755/pt of Ayyanthole Village in Thrissur taluk. Ext.P1 is the application under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (for short, the "KLUO") .

2. The Collector has power under KLUO to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. The Collector is defined under clause 2(a) of the KLUO which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Though the property is reclaimed before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the KLUO or after its commencement, permission from the Collector is necessary for utilising the above land for any other W.P(C).No.8017 of 2014 B2purposes. This Court in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2010 (2) KHC499 held as follows: "If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU." 3. In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT511 another Division Bench of this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. In Praveen's case (supra) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.

4. It is submitted that the properties of the petitioner mentioned in Ext.P1 have been reclaimed before the Act 28 of W.P(C).No.8017 of 2014 B32008. It is also submitted that in draft Data Bank these properties are entered as reclaimed land.

5. In view of the above, the property cannot be treated as a paddy or wet land under the Act 28 of 2008. It is held in Joseph John Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2014(1) KLT706 that even if the land was reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008, it is not a bar to consider the application in terms of clause (6) of the KLUO. Therefore the petitioner shall approach the District Collector, Thrissur with an application to utilize the land for other purposes in terms of clause (6) of the KLU order. The District Collector, Thrissur shall consider such application within two months from the date of receipt of such application in the light of discussion as above after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE. Sbna/13/10/14

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Sona Babu vs State of Kerala Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque