Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1944 CRP NO. 228 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMA 43/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOLLAM REVISION PETITIONER/S: THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION , KOLLAM BY ADV C.P.PRADEEP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT/S: SAIJU, AGED 53 YEARS S/O LEKSHMANAN, AKKAVILAYIL, SREESARAVANA NAGAR-23, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.S DIAS,J.
--------------------------- ----------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2022.
ORDER
The revision petition is filed challenging the order
dated 12.2.2019 passed in CMA No.43/2018 by the Court of the Additional District Judge-V, Kollam.
2. The revision petitioner is the District Collector, who was the respondent in the appeal and the respondent was the appellant before the court below.
3. The revision petitioner’s case, in brief, in the memorandum of the revision petition is that, the respondent had filed the appeal seeking to release a
vehicle bearing registration No.KL 02 AW 9008 (Excavator) under Sec.21 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (in short ‘Act’ ). According to the revision petitioner, the respondent had illegally converted and reclaimed 5.61 Ares of Paddy land in resurvey No.155/5-2 and 155/8 in Block No.3 of Thrikkadavoor Village in Kollam District. These lands are included in the data bank prepared under Sec.5(4) of the
Act, by using the above-mentioned excavator. The authorised officer had seized the excavator. Annexure I prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee shows that the properties are recorded as ‘nilam’ . Annexure II
is the gazette notification which substantiates the classification of land. Annexure III mahazar prepared by the Village Officer also proves that the vehicle was used for the illegal conversion of the property. A person named Binu, had on behalf of the respondent, deposed before the Deputy Collector that the properties are included in the data bank and the respondent has applied before the Local Level Monitoring Committee, to remove the entry
from the data bank. The deposition given by the respondent is Annexure IV. On the basis of the abovesaid findings, the District Collector had passed Annexure V. Aggrieved by Annexure V, the respondent preferred the appeal. However, the Appellate Court, without considering the materials on record, passed the impugned order. The impugned order is erroneous, illegal and improper. Hence the revision petition.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. The specific case of the revision petitioner is that
the respondent had used the excavator to convert the property comprised in resurvey Nos.155/5-2 and 155/8 in Block No.III of Thrikkadavoor Village in Kollam District.
6. The Appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials on record, found that resurvey No.155/5-2 is not included in the data bank and resurvey No.155/8
establishes that the property in question is a partly converted land. Accordingly, the Appellate Court concluded that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the case at hand. Consequently, the
Appellate Court directed the excavator to be released to the respondent after setting aside the confiscation proceeding of the vehicle.
7. The learned Government Pleader vehemently
argued that the order is wrong because the court below has not appreciated the materials on record. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner supported the impugned order and argued that even going by the materials produced before this Court, it is evident that resurvey No.155/5-2 is not included in Annexure II. Likewise, resurvey No.155/8 shows that it is a partly converted land. Therefore, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order.
8. The short point is whether there is any illegality in the impugned order. On an anxious consideration of the pleadings and
materials on record, especially the impugned order
passed by the court below and taking note of Annexure II it is quite evident that resurvey No.155/5-2 is not included in Annexure II and resurvey No.155/8 is partly converted land. Thus, the finding of the Appellate Court that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the property in question is correct and justifiable. I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order, which is passed on the basis of appreciation of facts, warranting the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition is groundless and is dismissed.
SD/- sks/13.06.2022 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE APPENDIX OF CRP 228/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO A-6668/18 DATED 30.4.2018 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, KOLLAM ANNEXURE 11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GOVERNMENT GAZETTE DATED 24.3.2012 ANNEXURE 111 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM