Allowed

Santha v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016WP(C)/12638/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The order directing paddy cultivation was set aside due to the Collector's failure to consider the petitioner's objections, contrary to clause 4(3).

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 orders; petitioner directed to approach R.D.O. under Clause 6 of the KLU Order.

Santha Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 12638 of 2010 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SANTHA,W/O.RAVINDRAN, KAVETH HOUSE, NIRAMARUTHOOR.P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. INDIRA,W/O.SOMAN KAVETHU, DO. DO.

¶9

3. SILJA,W/O.ANILKUMAR KAVETH, DO. DO. (2ND PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY POWER HOLDER,

¶10

RAVINDRAN).

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR.

¶14

2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VINEETHA HARIRAJ

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).NO.12638/2010

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1 COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.862/2007 AND 863 OF 2007 OF SRO, TIRUR.

¶23

P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶24

P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05/05/2008

¶25

P4 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶26

*P5 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶27

*EXHIBIT P5 SUBSTITUTED AS

¶28

*P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(A) 8899/2008 DATED 28/02/2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶29

*AS PER THE ORDER DATED 28/02/2010 IN IA.NO.5285/2010

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 12638 of 2010 (D)

¶36

Dated: 25^th October, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The petitioner is aggrieved with Exts.P4 and P5 orders. Ext.P4 is an order passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 ('KLU Order' for short) directing the petitioner to cultivate paddy in 53 cents of land comprised in Survey No.117/1 within 30 days from the date of service of the notice. The appeal filed against Ext.P4 was also rejected by Ext.P5 order, produced subsequent to the filing of the writ petition and substituted with the notice on appeal, which was earlier produced as Ext.P5.

¶39

The petitioner contends that the property of the petitioner is a garden land and was converted long back and there could be no cultivation carried on in the

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 12638/2010 -2-

¶41

said property. The petitioner had also filed an objection, to the notice given by the Collector under the KLU Order, by Ext.P2. None of the contentions taken up in the objection was considered by the Collector and Ext.P4 order was passed merely directing cultivation of the land within 30 days. An appeal was filed, which was also rejected by Ext.P5.

¶42

The learned Counsel immediately points to clause 4(3) of the KLU Order to contend that the Collector, on issuance of notice, has to consider the objections which have to be filed within ten days and if the same are found to be sustainable, the notice has also to be cancelled.

¶43

It is also to be noticed that, as on the date of Ext.P4 order, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, had not come into force. In such circumstance, if the contention of the petitioner is

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 12638/2010

¶45

-3-

¶46

that the land was converted and filled up long prior to the Order at Ext.P4, then, necessarily, going by Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep - 2015 (1) KLT 984 SC , the petitioner could make an application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order.

¶47

Ext.P4 is found to be bad for reason of non consideration of any of the objections placed on record by the petitioner. Ext.P4 would stand set aside and as a consequence, Ext.P5 would also stand set aside. The petitioner would be entitled to approach the R.D.O. under Clause 6 of the KLU Order, as has been held in

¶48

Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector - 2015 (3)

¶49

KLT 182 .

¶50

The writ petition is allowed. No Costs.

¶51

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶52

jjj 25/10/16

Santha v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santha 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

K.T.Ida Vs Amit Meena

Joby T.G Vs Sri.Rajamanickam

Baburaj Vs Mr.v.Ratheesan

A.Abdul Razaak Vs Anu.R.S

Varghese M.O Vs Kishore

Ambujakshi P. Vs K.K.Muhammed