Allowed

P.a.Jose v. the Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC17 Nov 2022RP/740/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition was filed to correct an error apparent on the face of the records in a previous writ judgment. The earlier order directed disposal of a Form-5 application for the entire property extent, whereas the petition had submitted the application for only 51.58 Ares. The court allowed the review and corrected the original judgment.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is allowed; the judgment dated 11.07.2022 is corrected to specify that the Form-5 application relates to 51.58 Ares of property.

P.a.Jose Vs the Sub Collector/Revenue… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY,THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/26TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

RP NO. 740 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22436/2022 OF

¶7

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶9

P.A.JOSE AGED 72 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, PAYAPALLY HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI, THIRUVATHUKKAL(PO), KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 003 MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOS GOLD TRADES AND JEWELLERS(P)LTD., KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RDO, FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682 001.

¶13

2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, MARADY (PO), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 304.

¶14

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MARADU VILLAGE, MARADU (PO), ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 304.

¶15

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RP. No.740/2022

: 2 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

R.P. No.740 of 2022

W.P.(C) No.22436 of 2022

¶24

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2022

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶27

The writ petition was filed by the review petitioner

¶28

seeking to direct the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector to expeditiously dispose of Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

¶29

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner which is referred in Ext.P4 communication if the same is

¶30

RP. No.740/2022

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

received, supported by all requisite documents and paying prescribed fee, if any, and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of four months. While considering Form-5 application, the 1^st respondent should advert to Exts.P5 and P6 reports also.

¶33

The review petitioner states that there is an error apparent on the face of the records of the case. Out of the total extent of property possessed by the petitioner 1 Hectare 92 Ares and 25 square metres, the Form-5 application was submitted only with respect to 51.58 Ares which is included in the Data Bank. However, in the judgment, this Court proceeded as if the Form-5 application has been submitted for the entire extent of 1 Hectare 92 Ares and 25 square metres.

¶34

The review petitioner states that deletion from the Data Bank is required only in respect of 51.58 Ares of property. The direction of this Court to consider Form-5 application for the entire extent of property would create unnecessary confusion in the matter.

¶35

RP. No.740/2022

¶36

: 4 :

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel for the review

¶38

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶39

In the writ petition, the petitioner sought to command the respondents to consider Ext.P5 Form-5 application. In the Form-5 application, the petitioner has sought to delete from the Data Bank only an extent of 51.58 Ares of property. Therefore, this Court finds that there is an error in the judgment delivered by this Court on 11.07.2022, which is liable to be corrected in the interest of justice.

¶40

The review petition is therefore allowed. The judgement dated 11.07.2022 in W.P.(C) No.22436 of 2022 is corrected as follows:

¶41

(i) After the words “Wetland Rules,

¶42

2008”, in the 4^th line in paragraph 3 of the judgment, the following words should be inserted:

¶43

“for removing 51.58 Ares from Data Bank”.

¶44

RP. No.740/2022

¶45

: 5 :

¶46

(ii) After the words “According to the

¶47

petitioner” in the 8^th line in paragraph 6 of the

¶48

judgment, the following words should be

¶49

inserted:

¶50

Registry to issue corrected judgment in the writ petition to the

¶51

parties.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶54

aks/24.11.2022

P.a.Jose v. the Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Jose v. the Sub Collector/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

P.Bhuvanendra Rao Vs M/S. Coral Shelters & Builders Private Limited

Abdurahiman A.K. Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur

Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs the District Collector

M/S DM Med City Hospital India (Pvt) Ltd. Vs N.P.Joseph

Mohammed Ismail Kunju Vs the District Collector

Puthiya Ogintakath Hashim Vs 1. the Calicut Corporation Rep. by Its Secretary