Allowed

G. Vinayan, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC16 Dec 2020WP(C)/26092/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner challenged the inaction of the first respondent regarding an application for permission to utilize un-notified land for other purposes under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to take up and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application within three months after affording him an opportunity of hearing.

G. Vinayan, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.26092 OF 2020(J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

G. VINAYAN, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR (LATE), PULARI HOUSE, KADATHY MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.D.O. OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, PATTIMATTOMMUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA (P.O.)686673.

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-682316.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, VELLOORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA-686669.

¶13

BY SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C)No.26092 of 2020

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.26092 of 2020

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Ext.P2 is an application preferred by the petitioner in Form No.6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules for permission to utilize a land held by him measuring 18.49 Ares and situated in Sy.No.410/11-2 of Valakom Village, which is an un-notified land in terms of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, for other purposes. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the first respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P2 application.

¶20

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶21

3 . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to take up and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 application in accordance with law, if the same is received and pending, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. It is made clear that the hearing in terms of this judgment can either be

¶22

W.P.(C)No.26092 of 2020

¶23

¶24

physical or through video conference. This judgment is rendered without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if necessary in respect of the land covered by Ext.P3 application.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C)No.26092 of 2020

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2525/2000 DATED 15.5.2000 OF S.R.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶33

EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.1.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO HIS 18.49 ARES OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.410/11-2 OF VALAKOM VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.1.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO HIS 15 ARES OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.410/11-22 OF VALAKOM VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.1.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.1428/2020.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR ON EXHIBIT P2 APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON EXHIBIT P2 APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.7.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH SKETCH.

G. Vinayan, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Vinayan, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K.Lakshmikutty Vs Changanacherry Municipality

Satheesh Chandran Vs the Tribunal for Local Self Government

E.O. Thomas Vs Njarakkal Grama Panchayath

Herold Vs the District Collector, Collectorate, Civil Station, Kakkanad

Saleem. M Vs Sugadha Pradeep

Chellamma P.T. Vs Appellate Authority Under Rule 10 of