Partly allowed

Muhammed Kutty v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC13 Jul 2022WP(C)/8017/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed Revenue Divisional Officer's order in Form-5 application regarding property inclusion in conservation data bank. Petitioner directed to obtain KSREC report and reconsider matter after hearing within three months to ensure property deletion if liable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Ext.P10 order quashed; 1st respondent directed to obtain KSREC report and reconsider matter within three months after hearing.

Muhammed Kutty Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8017 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 MUHAMMED KUTTY AGED 72 YEARS S/O.ABDU, VALLIYIL HOUSE, PATTAMBI TALUK, VALLAPUZHA VILLAGE. PALAKKAD DT. - 679 336.

¶7

2 YOOSAF AGED 62 YEARS S/O.ABDU, VALLIYIL HOUSE, PATTAMBI TALUK, VALLAPUZHA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DT. - 679 336. BY ADV A.HAROON RASHEED

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OTTAPPALAM, R.S.ROAD, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DT. - 679 101.

¶10

2 VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANIYAMKULAM P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. - 679 104.

¶11

3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VANIYAMKULAM P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. - 679 104.

¶12

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VANIYAMKULAM VILLAGE-I, VANIYAMKULAM P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. - 679 104.

¶13

5 THE THAHSILDAR OTTAPPALAM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, R.S.ROAD, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DT. - 679 101.

¶14

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C).No.8017/2022

¶17

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶19

W.P.(C).No.8017 of 2022

¶20

Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2022

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶23

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exhibits P10 order.

¶24

ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exhibits P8 report of the Local level monitoring Committee.

¶25

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1^st respondent to delete /remove petitioner's property situated in survey No. 9/6 in Pulachithara Desom, Vaniyamkulam -1 Village, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad District from the data bank.

¶26

iv. To declare that the petitioner's property situated in survey No. 9/6 in Pulachithara Desom, Vaniyamkulam -1 Village, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad District, is not liable to be included in the data bank prepared as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

¶27

v. To issue such other and further relief as this Honorable court may deem fit and proper in the

¶28

W.P.(C).No.8017/2022

¶29

¶30

facts and circumstances of the case.

¶31

The main prayer in this writ petition is against Ext.P10 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in a Form-5 application. It is submitted that the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre report (KSREC report) is not obtained and property is not even inspected before passing the order.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

¶33

Going through Ext.P10 it is not clear whether the 1^st respondent inspected the property. Moreover, the petitioners have got a contention that the KSREC report is necessary in this case. If that is the case, the 1^st respondent will get KSREC report before deciding the matter. The petitioners have to do the needful for getting the KSREC report. Based on the same the Revenue Divisional Officer can take fresh decision. For facilitating the 1^st respondent to decide the matter afresh, Ext.P10 can be quashed.

¶34

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

¶35

W.P.(C).No.8017/2022

¶36

¶37

Ext.P10 is quashed.

¶38

The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

Before passing final orders, the KSREC report should be obtained by the 1^st respondent.

¶40

sd/-

¶41

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C).No.8017/2022

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8017/2022

¶46

`PETITION`	`ER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA LAND` `UTILIZATION ORDER DATED 28/11/2003.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT` `ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DATED` `5/1/2010.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE` `PETITIONER'S BUILDING.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF DATA BANK` `REGARDING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/12/2018` `IN W.P.C.NO.41618/2018.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION` `DATED 18/3/2019.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9/5/2019` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE` `AGRICULTURAL OFFICER.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF LOCAL` `LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE CONVENED ON` `16/12/2019.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF 5TH` `RESPONDENT DATED 28/12/2020.`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/10/2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN` `W.P.C.NO.18478/2021.`

Muhammed Kutty v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Kutty v. 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

Mohammed Musthafa A.K Vs Perinthalmanna Municipality

Mary Stephen, Vs State of Kerala

Mary Jomol K.J., Vs Ezhupunna Grama Panchayath

Salim T.A. Vs C.G.D.A.

C.v.Abraham Vs the District Panchayath

C.v.Abraham Vs the District Panchayat