Paulose v. The State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2015/6TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 13290 of 2015 (I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------------- PAULOSE, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. THOMMAN, RESIDING AT VADAKKE KOTTARAM, EAST GATE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S):

------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001.

3. THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001.

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADUVILE VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001.

5. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ

WP(C).No. 13290 of 2015 (I) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.6117/2012 OF VAIKOM SRO DATED 6.8.2012.

EXHIBIT P2:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 7.4.2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADUVLE VILLAGE.

EXHIBIT P3:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 7.9.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8.9.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17.10.2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2014 IN WPC NO.21338/2014 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 13290 of 2015 (I) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of May, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner contends that the petitioner's property is not included in the Data Bank, which however is refuted by the learned Government Pleader, who submits on instructions that subject property is included in the Data Bank prepared for the area and the same is shown in the revenue records as 'nilam'.

2.

In such circumstance, the petitioner's remedy would be to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala - 2015(1) KLT 651; which if resorted to ought to be considered in accordance with law.

W.P.(C) No. 13290/2015 -2Leaving open such remedies, the writ petition would stand closed.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj