Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Kerala) - Land described as paddy land in Revenue records, but not included in data bank

LATEST JUDGEMENTS    

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Kerala) - Land described as paddy land in Revenue records, but not included in data bank — Government circular restricting conversion of such land to 10 cents in Pane hay at area and 5 cents in Municipality/Corporation areas - Whether circular valid - Held, said circular puts fetters on and restricts the power conferred under the KLU Order - Hence, circular cannot be said as valid ~ Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Kerala) - Constitution of India, Article 226

Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Kerala) - Clause6 - Applications for conversion of user under Clause 6 - How to be dealt with - Held, Authority under KLU Order cannot decide as to whether conversion is for making a residential or commercial building - When land is found to be not cultivable, it is land holders’ choice to put it to any legitimate use - Constitution of India, Article 226      (Paras 24 to 28)

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Kerala) -Apparent discordant note and a glaring anomaly evident in the Paddy Land Act and the KLU Order - Examined - Court observes that Government would look into observations made by the High Court in the present judgment regarding restrictions made for legitimate enjoyment of land and bring in corrective measures - Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Kerala) (Paras 21, 22 & 23)

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Kerala) - Section 5 - Inclusion of land in data bank - Non-application of mind by Authorities under the Act- Judicially noted- Held, deluge of litigation before High Court indicates that inclusion of lands has been done in a haphazard manner and practical aspect of whether the land is cultivable has not at all been looked into - Constitution of India, Article 226 (Para 16)

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Kerala) - Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Kerala) - History of enactments: cause and effect- Traced----------------------2017(4) KHC 191

 

 

Environmental Law- Illegal mining activity - Issue of mining without an Environmental Clearance (EC) or Clearance under Forest Conservation Act or both - Clarified - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986-Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Mineral Concession Rules, 1960-------------------2017 (4) KHC SN 8

 

 

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 95 - Act causing slight harm - Whether an act, which amounts to an offence, is trivial or not, would depend upon the nature of the injury, the relationship between the parties, knowledge or intention with which the offending act was done, the situation in which the parties are placed and other related circumstances - There cannot be any absolute standard or degree of harm which may be regarded as slight that person of ordinary sense and temper would not complain of the harm — Criminal Trial

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 323 and 95 - Allegation that in a quarrel between hostel mates, accused beat de facto complainant - Offence registered under Sections 341 and 323 - Whether can be quashed — Held, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the status of the parties and relationship between them, when the harm caused by the accused was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm, it would be proper in quashing the offence against the accused - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 (Para 12)--------------2017(4) KHC 206

 

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 7 - Petition for divorce filed by husband-Allegation that wife is over-doubting and over-suspicious about husband of extramarital relationship and has the habit of checking his mobile phone, e-mails, papers, bags etc. - Wife hiring private detectives for checking movements of husband - Whether Family Court was right in granting divorce - Held, suspicion is a phenomenon which creates severe mental agony to the person who is suspected of extramarital relationship - When explanation offered by the suspected spouse is not accepted by the other spouse and the trauma continues, the situation is agonizing and becomes intolerable - Thus, such suspicion and allegation of extramarital relationship amounts to cruelty - Family Court rightly granted divorce - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13-----------------2017(4) KHC 209 (DB)

 

 

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Kerala) - Section 11(2)(b) — Eviction on the ground of arrears of rent - Held, in order toexhaust the ground under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, there should be a demand notice specifying period in which the rent fell in arrears and rate of rent payable - When the notice demanding rent does not specify the period of arrears and the amount in arrears, it is fatal           (Para 4)

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Kerala) - Section 11(2)(b) and 11(2)(c) - There is no scope for adjudication or an enquiry under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act as the jurisdiction is restricted only to look into the question of payment of the entire amount adjudicated as arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act within the time specified - Rent arrears upto the date of notice alone can be considered and adjudicated under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act---------------------2017(4) KHC 220 (DB)

 

 

Service - Enhancement of wage benefits with retrospective effect - Whether need be given to employees who resigned during the period  the revision was effected retrospectively - Held, when wage revision came into being, employees who had resigned had no association with the Company - Hence, there is a class distinction between employees who had voluntarily resigned and people who took voluntary retirement or who retired or who died in harness - Denying benefits to employees who had resigned cannot be said as arbitrary - Constitution of India, Article 14 - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Section 4----------------------2017 (4) KHC 222 (DB)

 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 125 - Whether maintenance can be claimed from daughter-in-law - Held, Section 125(1) includes only father and mother and not mother-in-law or father-in-law - Mother used in Section 125 denotes biological mother and not mother-in-law or the step-mother- Therefore, mother (mother-in-law) is not entitled to get maintenance from daughter-in-law (daughter)- Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 7---------------------2017(4) KHC 227

 

 

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Fixing of minimum wages - Interference by Courts - Held, decision to fix minimum wages has to be taken by appropriate Government using data that is gathered by it - Courts will not ordinarily, in exercise of their power of judicial review under Article 226, interfere with the said decision of the Government, save in exceptional situations - Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Sections 3 and 7-----------------2017(4) KHC 233

 

 

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Kerala) - Section 12 - It 1$ not permissible to pronounce an order under Section 12 of the Act and a Judgment on a Rent Control Petition/Rent Control Appeal simultaneously - Both are standing on a different footing, deals with different field of issues at different stages and it cannot be brought under the same order either as a common one or as a joint one       (Para 8)

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Kerala) - Section 12 - In order to have recourse under Section 12, it is a pre-requisite that there should be an application under Section 11, initiated by the landlords, or an appeal preferred by the tenant against the order under Section 11 of the Act- Without satisfying anyone of the said conditions, there cannot be a recourse under Section 12 of the Act       (Para 5)

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Kerala) - Section 12 - It is not permissible to have a recourse under Section 12 of the Act during the appellate stage in an appeal filed against an order of the Rent Control Court passed under Section 12(3) of the Act (Paras 8 & 11)

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Kerala) - Section 12 - Scope of-Explained - Section 12 deals with two situations; i.e., restricting the right of tenant to contest an application filed by the landlord and the restriction to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act presumably by the tenant        (Para 4)

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Kerala) - Section 12- Revision - Question of jurisdiction of Court in passing the order - Whether can be considered even if no grounds are raised in revision -If a question pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Court in passing an order is raised before the Revisional Court, Court would be justified in considering it, though it was not specifically raised as a ground of attack----------------------2017 (4) KHC 239 (DB)

 

 

Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (Kerala) - Rule 35A(6)(b) Second Proviso - Interpretation of - Held, Proviso can only mean that the candidate, proposer and seconder must all belong to the ward from which the election is contested by the candidate - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Kerala), Section 28(1)            (Para 6)

Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Kerala) - Section 28(1) - Co-operative Society - Election - Effect of Ordinance 4 of 2017-If Bye-laws of Society permitted elections to be held on ward basis, then elections after the Ordinance would be on ward basis--------------------2017(4) KHC 243 (DB)

 

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Accused a permanent resident of Thiruvananthapuram - Non-bailable warrant issued by Court in Kannur - Manner of execution of warrant in cases where Trial Magistrate who issued the warrant makes an endorsement on the warrant and in cases where such endorsement is absent - Explained- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 78, 79, 80 and 81 (Paras 6 & 7)------------------- 2017 (4) KHC 263

 

 

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -Section 138- Trial Court permitting the accused to adduce evidence through his proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination - Whether the said permission is an order of Court - Held, action taken by the Magistrate in entertaining proof affidavit of accused in lieu of his chief examination cannot be said to be a judicial order as envisaged in Section 362 of the CrPC - It can only be a proceeding of the Trial Court which has to be treated as non est and ultra vires (as accused cannot adduce evidence by way of proof affidavit) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 362 - Criminal Trial       (Para 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Trial Court permitting the accused to adduce evidence through his proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination - Realising the mistake, Counsel for the accused filing application seeking permission to adduce oral evidence - Held, Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for the reason that granting such permission would amount to review of earlier proceedings of Court, which is barred under Section 362 CrPC - When the earlier course of action and proceedings are ultra vires and illegal, it cannot be said that those proceedings would amount to a judicial order which would get the immunity from review as envisaged in Section 362 of the CrPC - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 362-Criminal Trial ----------------------2017 (4) KHC 272