Dismissed

Kammadalikkutty v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC5 Jan 2015WP(C)/18/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition seeking direction to update revenue records regarding disputed land classification. Court directed petitioner to apply under specific rules before the Revenue Divisional Officer within two weeks and passed time limit for disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner set at liberty to file application before First Respondent within two weeks; First Respondent to pass orders within three months.

Kammadalikkutty Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/15TH POUSHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 18 of 2015 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

KAMMADALIKKUTTY, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, VADAKKEPEEDIYEKKAL ANANTHAVIL, KOONATHIL HOUSE, POST PACHATTIRI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL,

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, POST TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 101.

¶13

2. THE TAHSILDAR,

¶14

TIRUR TALUK, POST TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 101.

¶15

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VETTOM VILLAGE OFFICE, POST VETTOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 102.

¶16

4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VETTOM AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, POST VETTOM, (VIA.) TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 102.

¶17

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

RVS.

¶20

WP(C).No. 18 of 2015 (B)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

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

¶24

EXHIBIT P1:	THE TRU NO. 202/ 21/07/199	E COPY O 1998 OF 8.	F THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE LAND TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED
EXHIBIT P2:	THE TRUE THE DISTR	COPY OF THE ICT COLLECTOR	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE , MALAPPURAM DATED 17/02/2007.
EXHIBIT P3:	THE TRUE THE THIRD	COPY OF THE RESPONDENT	REPORT AND MAHAZAR PREPARED BY DATED 01/03/2007.
EXHIBIT P4:	THE TRUE DATED 15/	COPY OF THE 03/2007.	REPORT OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5:	THE TRUE PETITIONE 01/12/201	COPY OF TH R BEFORE 4.	E REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶26

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

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶32

¶33

¶34

Dated, this the 5^th day of January, 2015

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of 2.08 acres of land in Re-survey No. 337/5 of Vettom village in Tirur Taluk covered by Ext. P1 purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal dated 21.07.1998. The property, according to the petitioner, is virtually a dry land having effected conversion much before the commencement of the Act 28 of 2008. But the same happened to be described as a paddy land in the Revenue records. The factual position has been reported by the 3^rd respondent, vide Exts.P3 and Ext. P4 showing the exact nature and topography of the land in question. This was explained in Ext. P2 representation preferred by the petitioner before the District Collector. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has preferred Ext. P5 representation on 01.12.2014 before the second respondent for making necessary entries in the BTR, it is still to be

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 18 of 2015

¶38

: 2 :

¶39

acted upon. Hence the writ petition, seeking for a direction to be given to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P5 representation.

¶40

Heard the learned Government Pleader, who submits that, if the petitioner prefers a proper application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization before the first respondent, the same can be caused to be considered, after calling for a report from the 4^th respondent, as to whether property is included in the Data Bank Register.

¶41

In the above circumstances, the petitioner is set at liberty to file a proper application before the first respondent as aforesaid within two weeks; upon which the first respondent shall call for a report from the 4^th respondent and pass final orders in the said representation in accordance with Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order and in the light of the decisions reported in 2010 (2) KLT 617 (Praveen Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner) and 2014 (1) KLT 706 (Joseph John Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner) , after hearing the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 18 of 2015

¶43

: 3 :

¶44

Petitioner shall produce a copy this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶47

kmd

Kammadalikkutty v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kammadalikkutty v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reena George Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Mathew Vs the Authorised Officer

Pattambi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Union of India

Shalu S.Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Manager Vellamunda A.U.P. School Vs Deputy Director of Education

Rafeek.K.Y Vs the District Collector