Quashed

Thomas v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC12 Dec 2022WP(C)/24649/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala set aside Ext.P4 order rejecting petitioners' Form No.5 application due to failure to consider relevant reports. Ordered fresh consideration within six weeks incorporating Ext.P3 and R1(c) records.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 order set aside; direction to 1st respondent to consider Form No.5 application afresh considering Ext.P3 and R1(c) within six weeks.

Thomas Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 24649 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 THOMAS

¶8

AGED 86 YEARS

¶9

S/O. CHACKO, KALLANICKAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST
P.O., KEERIKOD- 685 585

¶10

2 JOSEPH, AGED 81 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, KALLANICKAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., KEERIKOD- 685 585

¶11

3 JAMES, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, KALLANICKAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., KEERIKOD 685 585

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶16

R.D.O. OFFICE, IDUKKI (P.O.) 685 603

¶17

2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MUNICIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, MANAKKADU P.O., THODUPUZHA 685 608

¶18

3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MUNCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, MANAKKADU P.O., THODUPUZHA 685 608

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) No.24649 of 2022.

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Dated this the 12th day of December, 2022 .

¶24

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order of the 1^st respondent rejecting Form No.5 application submitted by the petitioners. The petitioners contend that while rejecting the said application, the 1^st respondent has not taken into consideration Ext.P3 report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and R1(c) report of KSREC. It is also contended that the site inspection was conducted by the 1^st respondent without notice to the petitioners.

¶25

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent wherein it is stated that pursuant to the site inspection, it was found that the land in question is suitable for paddy cultivation. It is also stated that that

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C) No.24649 of 2022.

¶28

the land was found lying as fallow land with water channels filled up with water and there existed no sign of conversion that has turned the land unsuitable for paddy cultivation.

¶29

A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner contending that the 1^st respondent has supplanted the reasons stated in Ext.P4 by averments in counter affidavit.

¶30

Having gone through Ext.P4, I find that the 1^st respondent has not taken into account the relevant records appropriately while passing Ext.P4. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the application of the petitioners in Form No.5 afresh taking into consideration Ext.P3 and Ext.R1(c). Fresh orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No.24649 of 2022.

¶33

of this judgment.

¶34

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶36

Raj. 12.12.2022.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No.24649 of 2022.

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24649/2022

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶41

Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 29.4.2021 ISSUED FROM THE
VILLAGE OFFICE KARIKKOD.
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
15.2.2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT 6
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
24.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT

¶42

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶43

Exhibit R1(b)Petition submitted by residents of
Friends nagar colony
Exhibit R1(c)True copy of the KSREC report
mentioned in Exhibit P3
Exhibit R1(a)true copy of the application of the
petitioners dated 03/12/2021.

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13-04-
2021 ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR (LR),
THODUPUZHA.
Exhibit P6PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE
OF THE LAND COMPRISED IN SURVEY

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C) No.24649 of 2022.

¶48

NO.1574/6-A OF KARIKKOD VILLAGE AND
ITS SURROUNDING LANDS.

Thomas v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.R.Manoj Vs the Cherthala Municipality

Ummer Vs the Secretary, Agricultural Department

Abhilash G. Vs Cherthala Municipality

Hafsa Beevi Shajahan Vs the District Collector

Deepa K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Kurian Paul Vs the Inspector of Police, Puthukkad