Remanded

Raphy Antony, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC26 Jul 2023WP(C)/15150/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought relief due to a procedural impasse preventing land conversion, as the revenue portal required uploading a Form-5 application before accepting a Form-9 application for land nature change. The Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to reject the current Form-9 application to enable the filing of Form-5.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent to reject the Form-9 application within two weeks to enable the filing of a Form-5 application, followed by disposal of the Form-5 within two months.

Raphy Antony, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15150 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAPHY ANTONY, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O P.I.ANTONY, PONTHEKKAN HOUSE, CARMAL PARK, MISSION QUARTERS P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

¶8

BY ADVS. BINOY VASUDEVAN SREEJITH SREENATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPALLY NORTH VILLAGE, EDAPALLY P.O., COCHIN, PIN – 682024

¶12

BY SMT.DEEPA N., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) No.15150 of 2023

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

-----------------------

¶18

Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2023

¶19

The petitioner, who is owner of 58 Ares 42 Square Metres of land in Re-Survey Nos.1, 4 and 3 of Edappally North Village of Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District, is before this Court seeking to direct the respondents to pass final orders on Ext.P4 application.

¶20

The petitioner states that the land of the petitioner is in the nature of 'purayidom'. However, erroneously the land is described as 'Nilam' in Revenue records. The petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes. Hence, an application in Form-9 was submitted invoking Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

¶21

The petitioner would submit that though the petitioner's land is included in the Data Bank, the land is converted years ago. Therefore, at any rate, the land is liable to be removed from the Data Bank.

¶22

WP(C) No.15150 of 2023

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

The petitioner states that when the petitioner tried to upload a Form-5 application subsequently seeking to remove the land from the Data Bank, the application did not get uploaded for the reason that there is already a Form-9 application pending. In the circumstances, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondents to consider Form-9 application already filed and physical copy of Form-5 application of the petitioner.

¶25

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

¶26

When the land of owners are included in Data Bank,

¶27

the portal designed by the respondents require that a Form-5 application is uploaded first. Without uploading a Form-5 application, if any application is submitted to change the nature of the land in Revenue records, subsequently a Form-5 application will not get uploaded. This is the dilemma faced by the petitioner at present.

¶28

WP(C) No.15150 of 2023

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner makes a hard copy application to the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer requesting to reject his Form-9 application as not pressed in order to file a Form-5 application, the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer shall reject the Form-9 application within a period of two weeks. The petitioner will be at liberty to upload a Form-5 application thereafter and if such an application is received, the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer shall dispose of the same within a further period of two months. Needless to say, after obtaining orders on Form-5, the petitioner will be at liberty to file Form-9 application again for changing the nature of the land in Revenue records.

¶31

Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶32

N. NAGARESH

¶33

sss

¶34

WP(C) No.15150 of 2023

¶35

: 5 :

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15150/2023

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1372/2018 DATED 13-04-2018 OF S.R.O.EDAPALLY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 02-11-2021. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK AS AVAILABLE FROM THE WEBSITE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH ON-LINE DATED 13-03-2023. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-042023 IN W.P.(C) NO.12971 OF 2023. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Raphy Antony, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raphy Antony, 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

Santhosh v., Vs the Palakkad Municipality

O Thankachan Vs Malay Chatterjee

Bijo Issac Vs State of Kerala

Adv. R. Rajendran Vs Shri. Bishwanath Sinha IAS

Joby John Vs 1) State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa Kerala)

P.L.Jacob Vs State of Kerala