Petitioner challenged orders rejecting applications for change of land nature. Court set aside the orders for failing to consider material reports and directed reconsideration within six weeks.
Order setting aside rejection of Form-5/7 applications directed to be reconsidered within six weeks after considering relevant materials.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 1504 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
MATHEW M. E. AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. EASO, VETTIYEDATHUPARAMBIL, KOTTARKAVU, MAVELIKKARA P. O., ALAPUZHA - 690 101.
BY ADVS.
N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI RENI JAMES
RESPONDENTS:
MAVELIKKARA TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA P. O., ALAPUZHA - 690101.
WP(C) NO. 1504 OF 2022
2
BY ADV V.RENJITH KUMAR – S.C.
BY G.P. SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 1504 OF 2022
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P8, P13 and P14 orders. By Ext.P8, the 1st respondent, on finding that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ( for short, 'the Act'), directed him to restore the land to the original position invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. Pursuant to Ext.P8, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent by filing Form-5 and Form-7 applications for removal of the property from the Data Bank and for change of nature of the land from 'Nilam' to 'garden land'. By Ext.P13, the 2nd respondent rejected the From-5 application submitted by the petitioner and consequently, Form-7 application was also rejected vide Ext.P14. On going through Ext.P13, it is seen that the 2nd respondent has not adverted to Ext.P11 report of the LLMC, Ext.P4 report of the KSREC and the report of the agricultural officer. Since Ext.P13 order is
WP(C) NO. 1504 OF 2022
4
passed without adverting to relevant materials, the same is set aside. Consequently, Ext.P14 order rejecting Form 7 application is also set aside. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P9 application of the petitioner in Form 5 afresh after adverting to Ext.P4 and the report of the agricultural officer and other relevant records and pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 2nd respondent shall reconsider Form-7 application of the petitioner in the light of the order to be passed in Form-5 application.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above
direction.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
al/-
WP(C) NO. 1504 OF 2022
5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1504/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.06.2020. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT LLMC DATED 24.07.2018. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 13.11.2018. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.2018. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 31.12.2018. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.C148535/25019/DCALP DATED NIL. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2020. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.3717/2020 DATED 11.02.2020.
WP(C) NO. 1504 OF 2022
6
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE DATED NIL ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 23.10.2020. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PAGES FROM THE NOTE FILED FROM THE PETITIONER'S FILED IN THE RDO OFFICE. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.10.2021. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2021.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the Form-5 application violating the obligation to refer to relevant reports and materials was justified.
Whether the resultant order rejecting the Form-7 application be set aside due to non-adherence to relevant materials.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mathew M. E.
The District Collector
The Revenue Divisional Officer
The Tahasildar
The Village Officer
Mavelikkara Municipality
Murali Purushothaman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
