| K.S.THANKACHAN Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/16TH JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 3466 of 2017 (G)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
K.S.THANKACHAN,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. SOURIYAR, JUDY NIVAS,
MITHRAKARI P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 689 595.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SMT.T.J.SEEMA
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR &
CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
EDATHUA VILLAGE,
RAMANKARY P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA 689 595.
4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
RAMANKARY, ALAPPUZHA & CONVENER OF LOCAL LEVEL
MONITORING COMMITTEE OF EDATHUA VILLAGE,
OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
EDATHUA - 689 573, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
5. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 06-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 3466 of 2017 (G)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.52/2004 DATED 06-01-2014
OF AMBALAPUZHA S.R.O.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
RAMANKARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 18-03-2014.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, EDATHUA DATED 25-04-2014.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE SUB COLLECTOR, ALAPUZHA DATED 18.11.2015.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.12.2015 OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH THE REPORT
OF THE LOCAL MONITORING COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, ALAPUZHA ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT
LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE DATED 11-11-2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
'C.R.'
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 3466 of 2017 (G)
------------------------------------------
Dated: 06th June, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the
petitioner's application, before the Local Level
Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and the District Level
Authorised Committee (DLAC) for exemption for
constructing a homestead, was rejected.
2. The petitioner purchased the above land as
per Ext.P1 deed. The petitioner then applied for an
exemption under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 ('Paddy Land Act' for
short). The petitioner relied on the certificates at
Exts.P2 and P3, which evidence that the petitioner does
not have any land anywhere else in the locality for
W.P.(C) No. 3466/2017
-2-
constructing a residential house. The petitioner's
application before the LLMC, however, was not
considered favourably. The LLMC, by its minutes at
Ext.P5, found that the petitioner's family has a
residential house and, hence, refused to recommend the
proposal for exemption. The petitioner then approached
this Court with a writ petition. In the writ petition a
judgment was passed at Ext.P8.
3. The petitioner sought for a direction to the
DLAC to consider the recommendation. The DLAC, as
per sub section (8) of Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act,
could not have considered the matter without a
recommendation for exemption from the LLMC. In fact,
the specific condition under which the LLMC refused to
recommend exemption to the petitioner, was the fact of
his family owning another piece of land.
W.P.(C) No. 3466/2017
-3-
4. The petitioner's application was considered by
the DLAC and rejected, again, for reason of the
petitioner's son having a residence. There is an appeal
provided under sub section (6) of Section 9 of the Paddy
Land Act from Ext.P6 order to the District Collector,
which was not availed by the petitioner. The petitioner,
cites as a reason, the Contempt of Court case filed by
the petitioner, in which the order of the DLAC was
produced. The Contempt of Court case was closed on
25.01.2017. The petitioner again sought to challenge
the same before this Court by the above writ petition,
which was filed on 01.02.2017.
5. The petitioner relies on a decision of this
Court, reported in Joseph Thomas v. Agricultural
Officer, Alappuzha and others - 2015 (5) KHC 103.
A reading of the decision indicates that 'Family' as
W.P.(C) No. 3466/2017
-4-
referred under Section 9(8)(ii) of the Paddy Land Act
was found to be the family consisting of applicant, his
wife and children and it cannot be stretched to an
extent to include his father or grandfather. On facts the
present case can be distinguished. In the present case,
the father claims exemption and the rejection has been
on the ground that the family has another property. If
each member of the family is excluded according to the
person before Court, then, the statutory restriction
would be rendered ineffective and otiose.
6. It is also to be noticed that the purpose of
exemption is for building a residential house in a paddy
land held by the owner. The specific words employed in
Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act is '... considering the
applications for reclamation of paddy land for the
construction of residential building to the owner of
W.P.(C) No. 3466/2017
-5-
paddy land' (emphasis supplied). The intention is to
provide the cultivator/farmer/agriculturist with a
residence within his cultivable paddy land. Here, about
10 cents of paddy land was purchased by the petitioner
for the purpose of constructing a residential building,
that too, in 2014 after the implementation of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddyland and Wetland Act, 2008. It is
the said land which was sought to be exempted.
7. Such an exercise could lead to gross misuse,
since, then, large extents of paddy land could be cut up
into small properties and sold to different individuals,
who could then separately seek exemption. Different
members of a family could also claim exemption for
small tracts of land, out of a commonly held paddy land;
citing a desire to have an independent existence. That
would be defeating the very object of the enactment,
which has the preservation of paddy lands at its core.
W.P.(C) No. 3466/2017
-6-
This Court is not inclined to permit such exemption,
especially since both the LLMC and DLAC has declined
the claim and a contrary direction would go against the
clear statutory interdict.
The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed.
No Costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN,
JUDGE
jjj 6/6/17
No comments:
Post a Comment