w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sindhu. S. Lal v/s Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- SINDHU INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060104

Company & Directors' Information:- C. LAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2012PLC046499

    WP(C). No. 12782 of 2020 (W)

    Decided On, 30 June 2020

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

    For the Petitioner: Paul Jacob (P), Advocate. For the Respondent: Saigi Jacob Palatty, Sr. Govt. Pleader.



Judgment Text

1. The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:That the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 decision of the 3rd Respondent to the extent of it imposing a condition for excluding petitioner's property from the data bank. Petitioner's property is wrongly described as 'Thengu' in the Ext.P1 data bank. Petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 statutory application for deleting the said entry before the 3rd Respondent.The 3rd Respondent after due verification and inspection came to the finding in Ext.P4 that the entry in Ext.P1 is wrong and Petitioner's property ought to be excluded from Ext.P1. However for excluding the property a condition has been imposed by which Petitioner has been directed to provide a pathway through her property for the 'Anganwadi' to be constructed behind her property. The same is per se illegal and not warranted under law.It is in the light of the above averments and contentions, that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers :“i.Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction calling for records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the condition imposed therein for excluding Petitioner's property from Ext.P1 data bank.ii Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”2. Heard Shri.Rony Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.3. Ext.P4 is the proceedings dated 9.3.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee, Pramadam Panchayat, whereby the plea of the petitioner for exclusion of the subject property from the land data bank has been allowed, but however, there is a rider placed by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P4 to the effect that it is subject to the condition that the petitioner should provide property so as to give pathway to an Aganwadi which is proposed to be constructed within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The said proceedings dated 9.3.2018 rendered by the 3rd respondent LLMC reads as follows:-“MALAYALAM”4. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 only to the limited extent whereby it has been ordered that the petitioner should provide property to ensure that there is a pathway for the Aganwadi which is proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of the subject property.5. Needless to say, the petitioner is fully satisfied with the substantive decision in Ext.P4 to the extent it has allowed the plea of the petitioner for excluding the property from the land data Bank. After hearing both sides, it is to be only held that the statutory duty and obligation of the 3rd respondent LLMC is only to take a decision as to whether or not the subject property would fulfill the definition of the 'Paddy land' as per Section 2(12) of the Paddy & Wet Land Act, 2008 as on 12.8.2008 and then to take into account other relevant aspects for determining the primary issue and then take an appropriate decision on the plea of the party concerned for deleting or excluding the property from the land data bank. It is only for the limited purpose of discharging such duties and functions that power has been invested with the 3rd respondent to determine such issues. Under the guise of exercising powers in that regard, the 3rd respondent cannot order that the request of the party concerned could be allowed only subject to the condition that he should gift or provide his property to another person for formation of pathway. Those are all not aspects within the province of the 3rd respondent LLMC and therefore, it is only to be held that the impugned restrictive condition on Ext.P4 is absolutely illegal and ultra-vires and cannot even exist for a moment and it is ordered and declared that the same is a nullity. In that view of the matter it is ordered that the impugned restriction in Ext.P4 to the limited extent it directs that the petitioner should provide property for being used as pathway to the Aganwadi which is proposed to be constructed in the vicinity of the said property etc will stand set aside and quashed. However, the substantive decision in Ext.P4 dated 9.3.2018, whereby it orders for the exclusion of the subject property of the petitioner from the land data bank is not in any manner interfered with and will stand affirmed. Consequently, the 3rd respondent LLMC and the competent officials of the Pramadom Panchayat will immediately take steps to ensure that the subject property is deleted from the land data bank without any further delay and necessary notification in that regard is also got issued without any further delay and at any rate, within two months f

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rom the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment.6. The petitioner will produce certified copies of the judgment along with the copies of the memorandum of WP(c) with all Exhibits before the 3rd respondent LLMC represented by its Ex officio convener, the Agricultural Officer concerned as well as to the Secretary of the Pramadam Grama Panchayat, Pathanamthitta District for necessary information and further action.With these observation and directions, the above writ petition (civil) will stand disposed of.
O R