Dismissed

Muhammed Haneefa v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC7 Nov 2022WP(C)/4032/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought to remove his land from the Kanwarthana Data Bank. The Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to decide on the application within two months and the Village Officer to reconsider the restoration order pending that decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to decide on the Form-5 application within two months, and the 1st respondent to reconsider the Stop Memo based thereon.

Muhammed Haneefa Vs the Village Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 4032 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 45 YEARS
SON OF NOOR MUHAMMED, CHEPPADAM KALAM,
VADAKKENCHERY P.O.,
VADAKKENCHERRY VILLAGE,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678683

¶7

BY ADVS.
P.M.ZIRAJ
IRFAN ZIRAJ

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VADAKKENCHERY-1 VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678683

¶10

2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE LLMC VADAKKENCHERY-1 GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VADAKKENCHERY-1, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678683

¶11

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678001

¶12

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678001

¶13

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN SR.GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C) No.4032 Of 2022

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2022

¶19

The petitioner is owner of a land comprised in Survey Nos.228/5 and 222/2 of Vadakkencherry-I Village, Alathur Taluk of Palakkad District. The petitioner was served with Ext.P1 order under Section 12(2)(b) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 directing the petitioner to restore his land to its original position. In Ext.P1, it was cautioned that unless the petitioner restores the land, penal action will be initiated.

¶20

The petitioner states that Ext.P1 was issued as the petitioner’s land stands included in the Data Bank. The petitioner had submitted application under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 seeking to remove the land from the Data Bank. The 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is not passing any order on that application. At the same time, coercive

¶21

WP(C) No.4032 Of 2022

¶22

¶23

restoration orders are passed against the petitioner as is seen from Ext.P1.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶25

From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is evident that Ext.P1 order has been passed against the petitioner on 19.01.2022 directing the petitioner to restore his land to its original position. Ext.P6 communication dated 19.11.2021 would show that the petitioner has already submitted an application before the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the land from Data Bank. In view of Ext.P1 order passed by the 1^st respondent-Village Officer, it is highly necessary that the Revenue Divisional Officer passes appropriate orders on the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner expeditiously.

¶26

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to

¶27

¶28

WP(C) No.4032 Of 2022

¶29

consider and pass orders on the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner, within a period of two months. Based on the orders to be passed by the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, the 1^st respondent-Village Officer shall reconsider Ext.P1 Stop Memo.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.4032 Of 2022

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4032/2022

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit- P1TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED
19.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit- P2TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED
10.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit- P3TRUECOPYOFTHEPOSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 15.11.2021 ISSUED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit- P4TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF
THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED
12.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit- P5TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DRAFT DATA BANK IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PROPERTY OF PETITIONER
Exhibit- P6TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
19.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST AND SECOND
RESPONDENT

¶39

RESPONDENT’S/S EXHIBITS : NIL

Muhammed Haneefa v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Haneefa v. the Village 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

Suresh Kumar Ramakrishnan Kallada Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Suresh Kumar Ramakrishnan Kallada Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Suresh Kumar Ramakrishnan Kallada, Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

J.R.Chandrika Kumari, Vs State of Kerala

Smt. Maria Fagi Vs Divisional Forest Officer

B.Vinodkumar Vs District Collector