Norvy Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1127344
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
AppellantNorvy
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice p.r.ramachandra menon monday,the10h day of february201421st magha, 1935 wp(c).no. 2869 of 2014 (g) --------------------------------------- petitioners: --------------------- norvy, aged44years, s/o.joseph, thettayil house, kadungallur kara, paravur taluk, ernakulam. by adv. sri.p.k.babu respondents: ------------------------ 1. state of kerala, represented by its principal secretary revenue department, thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.2. the revenue divisional officer, fort kochi, ernakualm - 682 001.3. the tahsildar, aluva, ernakulam - 683 101.4. the village officer, mookkannur, angamaly, ernakulam - 683 577. by sr.government pleader smt.anitha ravindran this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on1002-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: msd. wp(c).no. 2869 of 2014 (g) -------------------------------------- appendix ---------------- petitioner(s)' exhibits: --------------------------------------- exhibit p1: true copy of the sale deed no.4381/1/2013 of sro angamali dated1110.2013. exhibit p2: true copy of the sale deed no.1890 of1994dated1105.1994. exhibit p3: true copy of the application submitted by the petitioner before the1t respondent dated1501.2014. exhibit p4: true copy of the stop memo issued by the4h respondent dated1501.2014. exhibit p5: true copy of the survey map of the property dated1307.2007. exhibit p6: true copy of the tax receipt dated1112.2013 in respect of the property covered by ext.p1. respondent(s)' exhibits: ----------------------------------------- nil //true copy// p.a.to judge. msd. p.r.ramachandra menon, j.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= w.p.(c)no.2869 of 2014 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= dated this the 10th day of february, 2014 judgment the case of the petitioner is that the property concerned herein is not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as defined under sections 2(xii) or 2(xviii) of the act 28 of 2008. the said property covered by exts.p1 and p2 sale deeds, are never liable to be considered as paddy land or wet land in view of the physical status of the property. the petitioner with intent to improve the property filed ext.p3 application before the second respondent for permitting the petitioner to construct a compound wall, which is pending consideration. however, without any regard to the actual facts and figures, the petitioner has been served with ext.p4 stop memo on 15.1.2014, which made the petitioner to approach this court by filing the writ petition.2. heard the learned government pleader as well.3. during the course of hearing it is brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of the law declared by this court as to the scope and applicability of act 28 of 2008 by virtue of the ruling rendered in jafarkhan v. w.p.(c)no.2869 of 2014 2 k.a.kochumarakkar & others [2012 (1) klt491 and also in praveen k. v. land revenue commissioner, thiruvananthapuram & others [2010 (2) klt617. it is also stated that the law stands settled, by virtue of the recent ruling rendered by the division bench of this court reported in revenue divisional officer v. jalaja dileep [2014 (1) klt161. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on ext.p3 within a reasonable time. in view of the limited nature and extent of relief sought for, this court does not find it necessary to deal with the merits of the case. the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on ext.p3 in accordance with law and taking note of the dictum in the decisions cited supra, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. this shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. the petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. sd/- p.r.ramachandra menon judge vpv
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY,THE10H DAY OF FEBRUARY201421ST MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 2869 of 2014 (G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- NORVY, AGED44YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, THETTAYIL HOUSE, KADUNGALLUR KARA, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKUALM - 682 001.

3. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 101.

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MOOKKANNUR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM - 683 577. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1002-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. WP(C).No. 2869 of 2014 (G) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4381/1/2013 OF SRO ANGAMALI DATED1110.2013. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1890 OF1994DATED1105.1994. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT DATED1501.2014. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE4H RESPONDENT DATED1501.2014. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY MAP OF THE PROPERTY DATED1307.2007. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED1112.2013 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C)No.2869 of 2014 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 10th day of February, 2014 JUDGMENT

The case of the petitioner is that the property concerned herein is not a 'paddy land' or 'wet land' as defined under Sections 2(xii) or 2(xviii) of the Act 28 of 2008. The said property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds, are never liable to be considered as paddy land or wet land in view of the physical status of the property. The petitioner with intent to improve the property filed Ext.P3 application before the second respondent for permitting the petitioner to construct a compound wall, which is pending consideration. However, without any regard to the actual facts and figures, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P4 stop memo on 15.1.2014, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

3. During the course of hearing it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of the law declared by this Court as to the scope and applicability of Act 28 of 2008 by virtue of the ruling rendered in Jafarkhan v. W.P.(C)No.2869 of 2014 2 K.A.Kochumarakkar & Others [2012 (1) KLT491 and also in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram & Others [2010 (2) KLT617. It is also stated that the law stands settled, by virtue of the recent ruling rendered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep [2014 (1) KLT161. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 within a reasonable time. In view of the limited nature and extent of relief sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to deal with the merits of the case. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 in accordance with law and taking note of the dictum in the decisions cited supra, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE vpv