Dismissed

Aseena.T.M v. the Revenue Divisional Officer(R.D.O.)

Kerala HC11 Dec 2019WP(C)/5084/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged inclusion of her property in the Data Bank under the Paddy Land Act, arguing pre-Act conversion. Court dismissed writ petition as maintainable since Data Bank was finalized, directing petitioner to approach RDO under Sections 5(4) and 27A of the Act within one month for deletion and disposal of the KLU application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move applications under Section 5(4) and Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act within one month; RDO to decide Section 5(4) application within three months and Section 27A applicati

Aseena.T.M Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer(R.D.O.) — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.5084 OF 2019(I)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ASEENA.T.M., AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.RAZAK, POOKUNNATH, THAYUR P.O., VELUR, THRISSUR - 680 584.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.BEN TOM

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER(R.D.O.) THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 003.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 003.

¶11

3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VELUR, THRISSUR - 680 601.

¶12

4 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (R.D.O.), THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 003.

¶13

5 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER THAYYUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680 601.

¶15

SR.GP. - RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.5084 OF 2019(I)

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that her property, comprised of 2.02 ares in Re.Sy.No.601/1 of Velur Village in Thrissur, has been converted much prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Paddy Land Act') and is, therefore, beyond the ambit of the said Act. She says that, however, the concerned Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) has erroneously included her property in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act, presumably because it has been described as one in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) and the revenue records prior to its conversion and therefore, that she has preferred Ext.P4 application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur, under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order) on 13.02.2019 and prays that the same be directed to be taken up and disposed of.

¶21

However, it appears that pending this lis, the

¶22

petitioner was advised to move the LLMC under the provisions of Rule 4(6) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008 and that she has done so and

¶23

¶24

WP(C).No.5084 OF 2019(I)

¶25

has produced the said application on record as Ext.P5, along with I.A.No.1/2019.

¶26

The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P5 be directed to be taken up first by the LLMC and on her property being removed from the Data Bank, Ext.P4 be directed to be taken up by the RDO, culminating in appropriate orders under the KLU Order.

¶27

Sri.Rajasekharan Nair, the learned senior Government Pleader submitted that since the Data Bank has now already been finalised, the petitioner will have to move the RDO itself under Section 5(4) of the Paddy Land Act and therefore, that Ext.P5 is not maintainable. As regards Ext.P4, he says that since it has been preferred by the petitioner admittedly much after 30.12.2017, being the date on which the provisions of Section 27A and its attendant Sections have been brought into the Paddy Land Act, the petitioner will have to move an application under Section 27A of the said Act and cannot seek that her application under the KLU Order be taken up and disposed of. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶28

¶29

WP(C).No.5084 OF 2019(I)

¶30

When I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader on the afore lines, I find substantial force in his contentions because, if the Data Bank has already been finalised, then the petitioner's remedy is to move the RDO under Section 5(4) of the Paddy Land Act. Further, since Ext.P4 has been preferred in the year 2019, which is much after Section 27A has been brought into the Paddy Land Act, going by Jeo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and another

¶31

[2019 (4) KHC 400], the petitioner will have to move an application under Section 27A before the RDO, after her property is deleted from the Data Bank.

¶32

Resultantly, I order this writ petition without granting any of the reliefs sought for; however, leaving liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate applications before the RDO, both under Section 5(4) and 27A of the Paddy Land Act; and if this is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the RDO will first take up and consider the application under Section 5(4) of the Paddy Land Act and decide whether the petitioner's property can be deleted from the Data Bank, after following due procedure and after obtaining necessary satellite images from the Kerala

¶33

¶34

WP(C).No.5084 OF 2019(I)

¶35

State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre - the expenses for which will be paid by the petitioner as and when called upon to do so. If, after the afore exercise, the petitioner's property is found deserving of being removed from the Data Bank, then the RDO will take up the Section 27A application and dispose of the same in terms of law thereafter.

¶36

In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of the directions in the judgment, I order the RDO to take up the application of the petitioner, to be made under Section 5(4) of the Paddy Land Act and dispose it of within a period of three months from the date on which it is presented before him and thereafter, if the said order is in favour of the petitioner, then to take up the application under Section 27A and dispose of the same within a further period of one month from then.

¶37

Needless to say, the resultant orders under both these provisions shall be communicated to the petitioner without any avoidable delay thereafter after they are issued.

¶38

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Stu

¶41

WP(C).No.5084 OF 2019(I)

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE	TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/06/2018.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT.	DATA BANK ISSUED BY THIRD
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 13/02/2019	APPLICATION TO 3RD RESPONDENT AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE	APPLICATION TO 1ST RESPONDENT
	DATED 13/02/2019	AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE	APPLICATION DATED 21/02/2019.

¶46

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶47

//TRUE COPY//

¶48

P.A TO JUDGE.

Aseena.T.M v. the Revenue Divisional Officer(R.D.O.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aseena.T.M v. the Revenue Divisional Officer(R.D.O.)

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.Thulasibai Vs the District Collector

Babu Paul, Vs Angamali Municipality

Capital Retreat Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayath Vs the District Collector

Princy Anto, Vs the Geologist

Boby Anne Varghese, Vs State of Kerala