Allowed

Anoop.P.a v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2023WP(C)/2040/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inaction of the Tahsildar in implementing a Revenue Divisional Officer's order to change land classification. The Court held the Tahsildar liable to consider the petitioner's representation and direct them to take appropriate steps within two months.

What did the court decide?

This Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation and take appropriate steps/action thereon within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgmen

Anoop.P.a Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2040 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANOOP.P.A AGED 40 YEARS S/O.P.K.ANANTHAN, THIRUONAM HOUSE, K.D.CHACKO ROAD, NEAR GANDHI NAGAR FIRE STATION, KALOOR, KALOOR.P.O.,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682017

¶8

BY ADVS. AVANEESH KOYIKKARA M.G.AISHWARYA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682030

¶12

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KB JACOB RD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI HEAD POST, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682001

¶13

4 TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, PARK AVE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682011

¶14

5 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, POONITHURA, FIRST FLOOR, ROSY BAZAAR, SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN RD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682019

¶15

Parvathy. K - GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 2040 OF 2023

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2023

¶21

The petitioner is owner of 3.64 Ares of land comprised in Block No.1 of Survey No.239/2-223 of Poonithura Village in Ernakulam District. The petitioner's land was described as Nilam in Revenue records.

¶22

As the petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes, he submitted a Form-6 application invoking the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. After considering the application of the petitioner and the report of the Village Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed Ext.P1 order directing to change the nature of the land in Revenue records

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is that though in Ext.P1 the Revenue Divisional Officer has directed the Tahsildar and the Village Officer to take consequential steps to make appropriate entries in Revenue records, no steps have been taken so far. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 representation before the Tahsildar. However, the Tahsildar is not acting in accordance with Ext.P1.

¶24

WP(C) NO. 2040 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

The learned Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition on behalf of the respondents. The Government Pleader, however, submitted that if Ext.P2 representation is received, the same can be considered in accordance with law.

¶27

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

¶28

In Ext.P1 order allowing the application of the petitioner to change the nature of his land in Revenue records, the Revenue Divisional Officer has directed the Tahsildar and the Village Officer to take consequential steps for changing the nature of the land in Revenue records. It is requesting to implement Ext.P1 order that Ext.P2 representation has been submitted by the petitioner.

¶29

In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar is liable to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 4^th

¶31

WP(C) NO. 2040 OF 2023

¶32

¶33

respondent-Tahsildar to consider Ext.P2 representation and take appropriate steps/action thereon within a period of two months from

¶34

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

ska

WP(C) NO. 2040 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A COPY OF ORDER NO.RDOCHN/356/2022-SUIT DATED 18.04.2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.05.2022. Exhibit P2(a) A COPY OF THE CONSIGNMENT TRACKING DETAILS OF EXT.P2. Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.37385/2022 DATED 22.11.2022.

Anoop.P.a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop.P.a v. State of Kerala

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

Saraswathi Vs State of Kerala

Yoonus K.K. Vs the District Collector

Sudheesh A.T Vs Meenangadi Grama Panchayat

Nazar.S Vs District Geologist

Anish Abraham Vs the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Musthafa Vs the Palakkad Municipality