Disposed

Dins Paul v. the District Collector

Kerala HC20 Jan 2023WP(C)/1726/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner owner of land included in the paddy land Data Bank filed an application to remove it seeking alternative usage. The court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the incomplete application within three months if complete and fees are paid.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the Ext.P5 application if complete and supported by requisite documents and pass orders within three months.

Dins Paul Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1726 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

DINS PAUL, S/O.LATE PAILY KP
AGED 53 YEARS

¶8

KALAMPARAMBIL, MADATHIPARAMBIL LANE, ST.VINCENT ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018

¶9

BY ADVS.
VINU CHAND
GEEVARGHESE MATHEW
C.R.VINOD KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682030

¶12

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM , PIN - 682001

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER POONITHURA VILLAGE, 1ST FLOOR, ROSY BAZAAR, SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682019

¶14

4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHIBHAVAN, VYITTILA , ERNAKULAM , PIN – 682019

¶15

SMT. K.G.SAROJINI- GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C) NO.1726 OF 2023

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2023

¶21

The petitioner, who is owner of 4.86 Ares of land in Poonithura Village of Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 2^nd respondentRevenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶22

The petitioner states that he is owner of 4.86 Ares of

¶23

land situated in Survey Nos.56/3-2 and 57/3-2 in Block No.1 of Poonithura Village, Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District. The land is a garden land. It is not cultivated with paddy. It is not fit for paddy cultivation either. However, the land is included in the Data Bank and is described as ‘Nilam’ in Basic Tax Register also.

¶24

The petitioner wants to use the land for other purposes. Hence, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 application in

¶25

WP(C) NO.1726 OF 2023

¶26

¶27

Form-5, invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The application was filed on 08.11.2022. The application is not disposed of so far. Unless the application is considered expeditiously, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship and loss, contends the petitioner.

¶28

The Government Pleader representing the respondents resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all material allegations made by the petitioner, in the writ petition. The Government Pleader, however, submitted that since the petitioner has invoked a statutory remedy under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the application submitted by the petitioner can be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, provided the application is received, is complete in all respects and is supported by all necessary documents.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

¶31

WP(C) NO.1726 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

respondents.

¶34

The petitioner is owner of 4.86 Ares of land situated in Survey Nos.56/3-2 and 57/3-2 in Block No.1 of Poonithura Village, Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District. The land is included in the Data Bank of paddy land and wetland prepared under Section 5(4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. According to the petitioner, the land owned by him is neither paddy land nor wet land. The land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The petitioner wants to use the land for other purposes and hence he has filed an application in Form-5 seeking to remove the land from Data Bank.

¶35

The Form-5 application has been filed by the petitioner invoking his statutory right under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The application being a statutory application, the competent authority has a legal duty to consider the application in

¶36

WP(C) NO.1726 OF 2023

¶37

accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

¶38

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2^nd

¶39

respondent to consider Ext.P5 Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner if the same is received, supported by all requisite documents and paying prescribed fee, if any, and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of three months.

¶40

sd/-

¶41

N.NAGARESH

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

WP(C) NO.1726 OF 2023

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1726/2023

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT
OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY DATED 04/02/2021
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
THE ACTUAL LIE AND NATURE AS WELL AS
THE PRESENT APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF
DRAFT DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT

¶48

Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX OF
THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SITUATED ON
THE ABOVE PROPERTY DATED 30/03/2022 AND
25/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶49

Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
08/11//2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Dins Paul v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dins Paul 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Althom Property Developers Private Ltd. Vs the District Collector

Rajan.K Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Palakkad

Mundayadan Chandroth Leela Vs Payyavoor Grama Panchayat

Muhammed Usman K a Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Biju P Vs the Geologist

Muhammed Faisal Pv Vs 1. Revenue Divisional Officer