Allowed

Sarafuneesa v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC4 Mar 2008WP(C)/4510/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the writ petition directed against the rejection of a land conversion application. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to decide the application on merits relying on the Village Officer's report and disregarding the non-operational Kerala Paddy Field Protection Bill 2007.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and consequential orders of the Secretary of the Panchayat were quashed and the petitioner was directed to a fresh decision by the RDO within two w

Sarafuneesa Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 4510 of 2008(J)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

SARAFUNEESA,S/O. MUHAMMED AGED 34 YEARS, VARAMBANKALLAN HOUSE KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.JIJO PAUL SMT.M.T.SHEEBA SRI.P.A.RAJESH SRI.K.RAKESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KARULAI VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. THE KARULAI GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM.

¶17

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.

¶20

¶21

W.P.(c).No.4510 OF 2008

¶22

- - - - Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

It appears to me that the petitioner is voicing a genuine grievance.

¶25

She applied for permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer for conversion of 5 cents of wet land from out of a total extent of 20 cents belonging to her so that she could construct a residential house. The application submitted by the petitioner was enquired through the additional Tahsildar who in turn had facilitated a report from the Karulai Village Officer. Going by the report-Ext.P5, the property of the petitioner has been partially reclaimed and 15 coconut trees which are atleast 20 years old do stand on the property. Village Officer has recommended that the petitioners application be granted. Under the impugned order - Ext.P7, the first respondent RDO has taken the view that on account of the introduction of the Kerala Paddy Field Protection Bill 2007 in the Assembly and since the terms of that bill, its provisions become operative from 19^th September 2007 it will not be possible for

¶26

WPC.No.4510/08

¶27

¶28

the first respondent to entertain the application especially since the Government has in their letter 72497/07/Revenue dated 17/10/2007 issued such a direction.

¶29

I heard the submissions of Sri.Babu.S.Nair, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Ansar, Government Pleader. The petitioner's application was submitted on 23/03/2006 much before the day when Kerala Paddy Field Protection Bill 2007 was placed on the floor of the Kerala Legislature. According to me, it is not just to reject the petitioner's application for conversion of a small portion of her property for the purpose of putting up a residential building on the reason of introduction of the Bill before the Assembly. Concededly the enactment is yet to get the assent of the Governor.

¶30

I am of the view that on the facts and circumstances which

¶31

attend on this case, the first respondent should be directed to take an early decision on the petitioner's application relying on Ext.P5 report submitted by the Village Officer which is based on local inspection and pursuant to an enquiry with notice to the general public also. The RDO himself ,it is seen, had inspected the site and found that the land

¶32

WPC.No.4510/08 3

¶33

is already converted as dry land and the construction of the foundation of the building has been started. The submission of Sri.Babu.S.Nair is that in view of the ensuing monsoon, the RDO should be directed to take an early decision without waiting for the report from the Agriculture Department.

¶34

The writ petition will stand allowed to the following extent:

¶35

Ext.P7 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Ext.P8 consequential order issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat are quashed. The first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner, acting on the village officer's report-Ext.P5 without insisting on any report from the Agriculture Department and without being influenced by the Kerala Paddy Field Protection Bill 2007 and the Government letter No.72497/07/Revenue dated 17/10/2007. Fresh orders as directed above shall be passed by the first respondent at the earliest and at any rate within two weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment.

¶36

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶37

sv.

¶38

WPC.No.4510/08 4

Sarafuneesa v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarafuneesa v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.C.Raman Vs Secy. Kunnamangalam Grama Panchayath

Radha Purushothaman Vs St.George Investment & Kuries and Others

Henry Mathew Vs the Executive Engineer, PWD

T.Muhammed Basheer Haji Vs the Edakkara Grama Panchayat

Gopalakrishnan Vs the Cochin Corporation

Latha Vs Vadakkanchery Grama Panchayat