Muhammed Shameel Vs. the Tahsildar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1123699
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-22-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
AppellantMuhammed Shameel
RespondentThe Tahsildar
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice p.r.ramachandra menon wednesday, the22d day of january20142nd magha, 1935 wp(c).no. 30249 of 2013 (e) ---------------------------- petitioners: ----------------- 1. muhammed shameel, aged25years s/o.aboobacker, malayilthodi house, areacode, malappuram district.2. aquib javed, s/o.shuhaib, oorngattiri, areacode village, malappuram district. by advs.sri.babu s. nair smt.smitha babu respondents: ------------------ 1. the tahsildar, ernad taluk, malappuram district, pin - 676 121.2. the village officer, areacode village, malappuram district, pin - 673 639. by sri. joseph george, sr. government pleader this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on2201-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 30249 of 2013 (e) -------------------------------- :2. : appendix petitioners' exhibits : ----------------------------- exhibit p1. true copy of the document no.3395/2012 of the sub registrar's office, areacode dated1106.2012. exhibit p2. true copies of the photographs of the properties of the petitioenrs. exhibit p3. true copy of the relevant page of the data bank, pertaining to the properties of the petitioners. exhibit p4. true copy of the application submitted by the petitioners before the first respondent dated0212.2013. respondents' exhibits: nil ----------------------------- /true copy/ p.a. to judge. rv p.r. ramachandra menon, j.-------------------------------------------------- w.p.(c.) no. 30249 of 2013 -------------------------------------------------- dated this the22d day of january, 2014 judgment the petitioners are the joint owners of the property covered by ext.p1 document, which is stated as a reclaimed land, having been reclaimed years back. it is not a 'paddy land' or a 'wet land' as contemplated under section 2(xii) or 2(xviii) of the kerala conservation of paddy land and wet land act, 2008. exts.p2 photographs of the properties and ext.p3 (relevant page of the data bank register) show the actual nature of property concerned. since the petitioners want to enjoy the property in a better manner, ext.p4 application was filed before the first respondent, which was not considered and hence the writ petition.2. in the course of further proceedings, the petitioners got the district collector impleaded in the party array as additional 3rd respondent. the prayer is to cause the w.p.(c) no. 30249/2013 -2- grievance to be considered and finalised, so as to enable the petitioners to make use of the property for other purpose than for agricultural purpose.3. heard the learned government pleader as well.4. the rights and liberties of the parties concerned under similar circumstances have already been considered by this court and it has been categorically held that, if the property was not lying as a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as on the date of commencement of the act, the provisions of act 28 of 2008 act are not attracted. in such circumstances, the claim has to be considered with reference to clause 6 of the klu order (kerala land utilization order), which is the law declared by a division bench of this court in praveen v. land revenue commissioner (2010 (2) klt617.5. in the above circumstances, the petitioners are set at liberty to file a proper application under clause 6 of the 'klu' order before the additional 3rd respondent within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon which, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders w.p.(c) no. 30249/2013 -3- shall be passed in the light of the law declared by this court as discussed above and also as per the recent ruling rendered by a division bench of this court reported in revenue divisional officer v. jalaja dileep (2014(1) klt161. this shall be done after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the application as aforesaid. the petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition and copies of the judgment and i.a before the additional 3rd respondent for further steps. this writ petition is disposed of. sd/- p.r. ramachandra menon, judge. rv
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE22D DAY OF JANUARY20142ND MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 30249 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. MUHAMMED SHAMEEL, AGED25YEARS S/O.ABOOBACKER, MALAYILTHODI HOUSE, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2. AQUIB JAVED, S/O.SHUHAIB, OORNGATTIRI, AREACODE VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 121.

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AREACODE VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673 639. BY SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2201-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30249 of 2013 (E) -------------------------------- :

2. : APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ----------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3395/2012 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, AREACODE DATED1106.2012. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIOENRS. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK, PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED0212.2013. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------------- /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge. rv P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 30249 Of 2013 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE22d DAY OF JANUARY, 2014 JUDGMENT

The petitioners are the joint owners of the property covered by Ext.P1 document, which is stated as a reclaimed land, having been reclaimed years back. It is not a 'paddy land' or a 'wet land' as contemplated under Section 2(xii) or 2(xviii) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Exts.P2 photographs of the properties and Ext.P3 (relevant page of the Data Bank Register) show the actual nature of property concerned. Since the petitioners want to enjoy the property in a better manner, Ext.P4 application was filed before the first respondent, which was not considered and hence the writ petition.

2. In the course of further proceedings, the petitioners got the District Collector impleaded in the party array as additional 3rd respondent. The prayer is to cause the W.P.(C) No. 30249/2013 -2- grievance to be considered and finalised, so as to enable the petitioners to make use of the property for other purpose than for agricultural purpose.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. The rights and liberties of the parties concerned under similar circumstances have already been considered by this Court and it has been categorically held that, if the property was not lying as a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as on the date of commencement of the Act, the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 Act are not attracted. In such circumstances, the claim has to be considered with reference to clause 6 of the KLU Order (Kerala Land Utilization Order), which is the law declared by a Division Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2010 (2) KLT617.

5. In the above circumstances, the petitioners are set at liberty to file a proper application under Clause 6 of the 'KLU' Order before the additional 3rd respondent within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon which, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders W.P.(C) No. 30249/2013 -3- shall be passed in the light of the law declared by this Court as discussed above and also as per the recent ruling rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2014(1) KLT161. This shall be done after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the application as aforesaid. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition and copies of the judgment and I.A before the additional 3rd respondent for further steps. This writ petition is disposed of. sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rv