Disposed

Subair Shoukathali v. the District Collector

Kerala HC27 Nov 2023WP(C)/11659/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to resubmit a Form 5 application covering the entire 3.49 acres of land included in the data bank, quashing prior proceedings on that partial application to ensure full consideration.

What did the court decide?

The prior application was treated as withdrawn; respondent permitted to receive fresh Form 5 application covering whole land and dispose thereof within three months.

Subair Shoukathali Vs the District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 11659 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SUBAIR SHOUKATHALI
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. SHOUKATHALI, MATTATHODI HOUSE, ERANHIMAVU,
PANNICODE P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673602
BY ADVS.
N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI
BINIYAMIN K.S.

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

¶9

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOZHIKODE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

¶10

3 THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

¶11

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KODIYATHUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KODIYATHUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673602

¶12

5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KODIYATHUR KRISHI BHAVAN, KODIYATHUR, PANNICODE P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673602 GP - RIYAL DEVASSY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) No. 11659 of 2023 : 2 :

¶15

VIJU ABRAHAM , J.

¶16

=========================== WP(C) No. 11659 of 2023

¶17

============================ Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2023

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of a total extent of 33 ares 99.7 sq.metres of land. Out of which 21 ares 85.5 sq.metre ares of land comprised in Sy.No. 142/6 and 12 ares 14.2 sq.metre of land comprised in Sy.No. 147/12 in Kodiyathur Village, Kozhikode Taluk of Kozhikode District. From the above mentioned properties, 21 ares 85.5 sq.metre ares of land comprised in Sy.No. 142/6 is mentioned as ‘nanja’ and 12 ares 14.2 sq.metre of land comprised in Sy.No. 147/12 is mentioned as ‘sthirapunja’ in the revenue records.

¶20

Since 3.49 ares of land comprised in Sy.No. 142/6 was included in Ext P2 data bank, petitioner has filed Ext P3 application which is allowed as per Ext P7. Petitioner submits that Ext P3 application in Form 5 was filed on a belief that the 3.43 ares alone, is included in the data bank. Petitioner later came to know that it is not the 3.49 ares of land which was included in the data bank but it was in fact 3.49 acres. Therefore, petitioner submitted Ext P8 representation requesting that he may be permitted to resubmit Form 5 application in respect of the whole of the property included in the data bank.

¶21

Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

¶22

WP(C) No. 11659 of 2023 : 3 :

¶23

After hearing both sides, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file Form 5 application in respect of the whole of the land which is included in the data bank. On a peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is ordered that Ext P3 application and further proceedings evidenced by Ext P7 shall be treated as withdrawn so as to facilitate the petitioner to file a proper Form 5 application seeking removal of whole of the land included in the data bank. Necessary arrangement to comply with the said order shall also be made by the competent authority in the portal. If the petitioner files a fresh application in Form 5 within a period of two weeks from the data of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be appropriately considered in accordance with law by the 2^nd respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶24

With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

sd/-

¶26

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶27

sbk/-

¶28

WP(C) No. 11659 of 2023 : 4 :

¶29

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11659/2023

¶30

`PETITION`	`ER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT` `DATED 22.04.2022.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF PUBLISHED` `DATA BANK DATED 20.03.2012 OF KODIYATHUR` `GRAMA PANCHAYAT.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION` `DATED 16.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT` `OF STATUTORY FEE OF EXT. P3 APPLICATION` `DATED 18.05.2022.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)` `21628/2022 DATED 04.07.2022 PASSED BY` `HON'BLE COURT.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED` `11.05.2022.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION STATUS OF` `FILE NO. 33/2022/91362 DATED 28.12.2022.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `16.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED` `16.03.2023 EVIDENCING THE EXT. P8` `REPRESENTATION`

Subair Shoukathali v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subair Shoukathali v. the District Collector

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

M.M. Salim Vs Secretary to Government

M.U.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Sarasan a S Vs the District Collector

N.P.Purushan Vs M/S Travancore Rayons Limited (in Liquidation)

Neeno Babu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer