U K Krishnadas v. The Local Level Monitoring Committee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2015/31ST ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 21330 of 2015 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

----------- U K KRISHNADAS S/O.K APPUNNI NAIR, U K HOUSE, MANATHMANGALM PERINTHALMANNA P O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP RESPONDENT:

----------- THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY)REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679322 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 21330 of 2015 (M) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS DATED 4/10/2010 EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/11/2014 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS- NIL // True Copy // P.A. to Judge sas

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 21330 of 2015 (M) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner and his two brothers are the absolute owner in possession of 45 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.21/1 and 21/2 of Perinthalmanna Village in Malappuram District. The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the same has been wrongly included in the Data Bank prepared in terms of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for brevity, Act of 2008) as 'nilam'. The petitioner contends that the land was reclaimed decades back before the commencement of the Act of 2008 and that the adjacent lands are not paddy lands. It is submitted that the grievance of the petitioner has already been projected by way of Ext.P2 before the respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee, which is stated to be pending consideration. The prayer is to cause the same to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time in

W.P.(C) No. 21330/2015 -2tune with the ruling rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala - (2015 (1) KLT 651).

2.

In such circumstances, if Ext.P2 is received in original, the same shall be considered, if necessary after conducting a site inspection and orders passed in accordance with law, as has been declared in the aforecited judgment. The orders shall be passed at any rate within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj