Disposed

Kalyani, v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC17 Dec 2019WP(C)/34473/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to expeditiously consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, within three months, ensuring due process and site inspection.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and dispose of the application within three months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Kalyani, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.34473 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KALYANI, AGED 60 YEARS W/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PUTHAN HOUSE, PARAKKALAM, VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE, KOZHINJAMPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 555.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001.

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALIYAVALLAMPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101.

¶12

3 CONVENER/AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHIBHAVAN, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 555.

¶13

SRI. MANURAJ GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.34473 OF 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 17th day of December 2019

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that her application preferred under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act' for short) before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), with respect to a property, having an extent of 10 cents comprised of in Sy.No. 426/32 of Valiyavallampathy Village, be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.

¶20

The petitioner asserts that the property in question is not included as a Paddy Land in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) under the provisions of the Act and that it is a garden land remaining as such for the last several years, if not for decades. The petitioner, therefore, asserts that the RDO is now enjoined to consider her application at the earliest and prays that the said authority be directed to do so within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶21

The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents submits that if the petitioner's application as

¶22

WP(C).No.34473 OF 2019

¶23

¶24

is evident from Ext.P5 receipt is still pending before the RDO, then there is no legal impediment in the same being taken up and considered in terms of law; however, praying that this Court make no affirmative declaration on the entitlement of the petitioner to any relief as sought for by her in the said application and leave it to the said Authority to take an apposite decision in terms of law.

¶25

In the afore circumstances and since it is without doubt

¶26

that the application of the petitioner can be considered only by the RDO, going by the provisions of Section 27A of the Act, I deem it appropriate to order this writ petition, directing the said authority to do so, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶27

Consequently, I order this writ petition and direct 1^st respondent - RDO to take up the petitioner's application as is evident from Ext.P5 receipt and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to her and following due procedure - including by causing necessary site inspection, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

WP(C).No.34473 OF 2019

¶29

¶30

I clarify that I have not considered the merits of the

¶31

contentions impelled by the petitioner in this case nor her entitlement to any of the reliefs sought for in the petitioner's application as is evident from Ext.P5 receipt and that it will be up to the RDO to take an apposite decision on it implicitly following the applicable Statutes, Rules and Regulations and after carefully ensuring that the property in question is not included in the Data

¶32

Bank as a Paddy Land, as has been asserted by the petitioner.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

SVP

¶37

WP(C).No.34473 OF 2019

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 30/11/2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 30/11/2018 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/12/2018 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK DATED 3/12/2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION UNDER 27A OF THE ACT DATED 7/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Kalyani, v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyani, 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

Ramachandran Vs Kulukkallur Grama Panchayath

Orange Tree Properties Vs State of Kerala

Joby M C Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs the State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Moosa Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation