Allowed

Maimu v. the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector

Kerala HC4 Apr 2022WP(C)/7572/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging the inclusion of the petitioner's property in the Data Bank. Relying on reports that the land is not cultivable, the court quashed an order partially excluding the land and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application for the entire extent of 29.19 acres. Relief: The petition was allowed and Exts.P12, P13, and P1

What did the court decide?

Exts.P12, P13, and P17 were set aside. The 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the application regarding the entire 29.19 acres of land for exclusion from the Data Bank.

Maimu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7572 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MAIMU AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. KASIM HAJI, SARVATHINTAVIDA, BEACH ROAD, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673103., REPRESENTED BY HER SON AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AFSAL S., S/O. KAREEM, AGED 37 YEARS, SARVATHINTAVIDA, BEACH ROAD, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673103. BY ADVS. BABU KARUKAPADATH M.A.VAHEEDA BABU P.U.VINOD KUMAR ARYA RAGHUNATH VAISAKHI V. T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ AJWIN P LALSON MOHAMED HISHAM P KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU P.LAKSHMI AISWARYA ANN JACOB

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA - 673 101. 2 THE TAHASILDAR, KOYILANDY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 305. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VIYYUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 307. 4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 305.

¶10

WP(C) NO. 7572 OF 2022

¶11

¶12

5 KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY, KOYILANDY P. O., KOZHIKODE - 673 305, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶13

FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 7572 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

T.R. RAVI, J.

¶17

-------------------------------------------- W. P. (C). No. 7572 of 2022

¶18

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2022

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner had applied for removal of her property from the Data Bank. The total extent for which the application was filed is 29.19 Ares. In Exts.P5 & P11, the concerned authorities have recommended removal of the entire extent of land from the Data Bank. Ext.P10 is the KSREC report which also supports the case of the petitioner. Ext.P14 is the report of the Village Officer, which also says that the property does not contain any waterbed or water logging nor is it a marshy land. Ext.P11 specifically says that there are coconut trees of more than 25 years of age. However, it would appear from Ext.P12 that the 1^st respondent had directed the 4^th respondent to submit a report excluding certain portion of the land. Such a letter itself is not warranted since the Revenue Divisional Officer could not have directed the Agricultural Officer to submit a report in a particular fashion . The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent has finally decided to exclude only 21.06 Ares of land out of the total extent and an extent of 8.14 Ares in the middle

¶21

WP(C) NO. 7572 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

of the total extent of the property has been directed to be retained in the Data Bank for the only reason that there is water logging. The petitioner relies on the judgments of this Court in Joy V. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector reported in (2021 (1) KLT 433) and Jessy Abraham V. Land Revenue Commissioner reported in (2022 (1) KLT 461) to contend that what is to be included in the Data Bank are only cultivable lands and the enquiry should also be as to whether the land is cultivable. Going by the reports Exts.P5, P10, P11 & P14 it is evident that it is not a cultivable land. The contention is that when the factual position is as reported in Exts.P5, P10, P11 & P14, the 1^st respondent could not have insisted on a different kind of report.

¶24

I find considerable force in the contention of the petitioner. The inclusion of the small portion of the land within a larger extent found to be uncultivable and also excluded from the Data Bank, cannot be justified in any manner.

¶25

In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Exts.P12, P13 & P17 are set aside. The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application in so far as it relates to 8.14 Ares of land for the purpose of exclusion from the Data Bank having regard to Exts.P5, P10, P11

¶26

WP(C) NO. 7572 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

& P14 reports and the judgments referred above. Necessary orders shall be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

¶30

The words “to reconsider Ext.P4 application in so far as it relates to 8.14 Ares of land” occuring in the last paragraph of the judgment in WP(C) 7572/2022, is replaced by the words “to reconsider Ext.P4 application relating to 29.19 Ares of land” as per order dated 03.06.2022 in I.A.No.2/2022 in WP(C) 7572/2022.

¶31

Joint Registrar 14.06.2022

¶32

WP(C) NO. 7572 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7572/2022

¶35

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶36

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.04.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EVIDENCING ACCEPTANCE OF LAND TAX FOR 29.16 ARES OF LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 06.07.2021 FOR 29.16 ARES OF LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, ALSO SHOWING CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE NEARBY PROPERTIES WHICH WERE LAYING AS SINGLE PLOT ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN 2011 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, SEEKING PERMISSION FOR USE OF THE LAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES SUBMITTED UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF KLU ORDER.
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.03.2011, SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF THE KLU.
Exhibit P5(a)	A TRUE TYPE WRITTEN LEGIBLE COPY OF EXHIBIT P5.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.03.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, KOZHIKODE, REQUESTING FOR GRANTING PERMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL AND COVERING SLABS OVER THE DRAIN.

¶37

WP(C) NO. 7572 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT
	ENGINEER DATED 14.03.2011 TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH DIVISION, KOZHIKODE.
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DATA BANK OF CULTIVABLE PADDY LAND AND WET LAND PUBLISHED UNDER SECTION 5(4)(I) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT AND ITS RULES UNDER KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 24.03.2012.
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02.06.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM 5 UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES, 2008 WHILE EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION UNDER CLAUSE 6 IN WHICH EXHIBIT P5 REPORT WAS PENDING CONSIDERATION, ON INSISTENCE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT DATED 28.06.2021 SUBMITTED FROM THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING & ENVIRONMENT CENTRE TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON EXHIBIT P9 FORM 5 APPLICATION, REPORTING THAT IT IS NOT FIT FOR PADDY CULTIVATION AND ALSO THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY INCLUDED IN THE DATA BANK.
Exhibit P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.01.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR SUBMITTING A NEW PROFORMA REPORT.
Exhibit P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND REPORT DATED 18.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN PURSUANCE TO EXHIBIT P12 ALONG WITH THE SKETCH.
Exhibit P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22.02.2022

¶40

WP(C) NO. 7572 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT STATING THAT, IN THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF PROPERTY, THERE IS NO PADDY OR WET LAND AND THAT THE SAME STANDS ALREADY CONVERTED. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER IN REPLY TO THE APPLICATION DATED 22/02/2022 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/03/2022 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT PASSED ON EXHIBIT-P9 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

Maimu v. the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maimu v. the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhakrishna Kurup Vs Senior Geologist

R Unnikrishnan., Vs Senior Geologist

Biju @ Varghese P. K. Vs the Secretary

M.Y. Elias Vs the Nenmeni Grama Panchayath

Vinod P R Vs Thiruvillwamala Grama Panchayath

Madhusoodanan R Vs Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayath