Narayanan a Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE3D DAY OF OCTOBER201311TH ASWINA, 1935 WP(C).No. 24108 of 2013 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- NARAYANAN .A., AGED54YEARS, S/O. LATE P.V. KUNHAMBU, ERUVIL VEETTIL, PILICODE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.37, BARC QUARTERS, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE-570 023. BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SRI.V.VENUGOPAL. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670 001.

3. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF THE PARIYARAM PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, (CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION5OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT2008, PARIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.

4. THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, (CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION5OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT2008, KANNUR-670 001.

5. THE PARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001. R1 & R2 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (REVENUE) MR.P.K. SOYUZ. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0310-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 24108 of 2013 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3725 OF 2003 OF TALIPARAMBA S.R.O. P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 769/2004 OF TALIPARAMBA S.R.O. DATED0403-2004. P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE. P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE. P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED0808-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P6. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLYDATED0609-2012 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, PARIYARAM. P7. A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS. P8. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED1012-2012 ISSUED BY THE4H RESPONDENT DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISED COMMITTEE. P9. A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

IN WP[C NO. 24751 OF 2012 DATED0803-2013. P10. A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT DATED1003-2013. P11. A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT. P12. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED2306-2013 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE. rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 24108 OF2013......................................................................... Dated this the 3rd October, 2013

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the owner of a property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 Sale Deeds, with intent to construct a residential building filed Ext.P3 application before the third respondent/Local Level Monitoring Committee for reclaiming the requisite extent of land. After considering the same, the District Level Authorised Committee rejected the application as per Ext.P8 order, which was subjected to challenge by filing W.P.(C) No.24751 of 2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by way of appeal before the second respondent. It was accordingly that Ext.P10 appeal was preferred before the second respondent , who considered the same and it was rejected as per Ext.P12 order, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the mandate under Section 9(7) of the Act 28 of 2008, Ext.P12 order passed by the District Collector is final and hence this writ petition.

3. The learned Government Pleader points out that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and W.P.(C)No. 24108 OF20132 misconceived and that statutory remedy by way of 'Revision' under Section 28 of the Act is still available to the petitioner, which does not exclude the order passed by the District Collector under Section 9(7) of the Act.

4. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is relegated to approach the first respondent by way of Revision Petition under Section 28 of the Act. If any such petition is filed within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of filing of the Revision Petition. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk