Partly allowed

Radhika Easwaran v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC9 Jan 2023WP(C)/27489/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned an application to remove specific land from the revenue data bank. The High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the application, finding it passed without due application of mind and without considering the KSREC report or holding a site inspection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order (Ext.P8) set aside; petitioner directed to file fresh form 5 application with supporting documents within three months; directed to consider KSREC report.

Radhika Easwaran 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 27489 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RADHIKA EASWARAN

¶8

AGED 60 YEARS

¶9

W/O.P.R.EASWARAN, FORT VIEW, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678 013.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶12

K.V.WINSTON
ANU JACOB

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.

¶15

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KANNADI - I VILLAGE, KANNADI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678 701.

¶16

3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE KANNADI PANCHAYAT, KANNADI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 701. BY ADV

¶17

SMT.SURYA BINOY - GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.01.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).24192/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

W.P.(C) No.27489 of 2022.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

th Dated this the 09 day of January, 2023 .

¶23

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0700 hectors of land comprised in Re-survey No. 565/43, 44 and 45 of Kannadi-1 village, Palakkad Taluk and District. The said property was described as wetland in the revenue records. Earlier, the predecessor-in-interest of the property had obtained Exts.P4 and P5 orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 granting permission for conversion of the land. Since the property of the petitioner was wrongly included in the data bank, she filed an application in form No.5 before the 1^st respondent seeking to remove the property from the data bank. Based on the report of the Agricultural

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C) No.27489 of 2022.

¶26

Officer, the 1^st respondent rejected the said application by Ext.P8 stating that the property forms a part of larger Padasekharam and is capable of being cultivated. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent has passed Ext.P8 order solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Neither the report from the KSREC was called for nor any site inspection was conducted by the 1^st respondent. It is further contended that the report of the Agricultural Officer based on which the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P8, is vitiated by nonapplication of mind.

¶28

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent wherein it is stated that the report of the Agricultural Officer shows that the property forms a part of larger Padasekaharam and is cultivable and accordingly, Ext.P8 has been passed rejecting the

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No.27489 of 2022.

¶31

application of the petitioner in form 5.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶33

and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P8 order has been passed without considering Exts.P4 and P5 KLU orders and without calling for the report of the KSREC and without physical site inspection. According to the learned counsel, the report of the Agricultural Officer has been obtained behind the back of the petitioner and that the petitioner could not get an opportunity to rebut the statement in the report of the Agricultural Officer. It is contended that had the report of the KSREC been obtained, the 1^st respondent would have arrived at a different conclusion.

¶35

The learned Government Pleader contends that

¶36

it is based on the report of the Agricultural Officer that

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No.27489 of 2022.

¶39

the property forms a part of larger Padasekharam and is cultivable that Ext.P8 order has been passed and therefore, Ext.P8 cannot be found fault with. The learned Government Pleader also contends that Exts.P4 and P5 orders have been obtained under the KLUO by the predecessor-in-interest of the property on conditions and the petitioner cannot, now, rely on the same.

¶40

A perusal of Ext.P8 order would reveal that it is passed by the 1^st respondent solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer that the property of the petitioner is part of a larger Padasekharam and the same is cultivable. On going through Ext.P8 and after hearing the rival contentions, I am of the view that Ext.P8 requires a revisit by the 1^st respondent inasmuch as the application of the petitioner has not been considered with due application of mind. For the said reason, Ext.P8 is set aside. The petitioner shall file a fresh form 5

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) No.27489 of 2022.

¶43

application with all supporting documents and the 1^st respondent shall consider the same in the light of the documents to be produced by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the application. The petitioner will be free to make necessary application before the 1^st respondent to obtain report from the KSREC.

¶44

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶47

Raj 09.01.2023.

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) No.27489 of 2022.

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27489/2022

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶52

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION` `CERTIFICATE NO.54881614 DATED` `03/03/2021 ISSUED BY THE SECOND` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED` `NO.2993/2011 OF SRO, KUZHALMANNAM` `EXECUTED ON 31/10/2011 BY` `M.P.DIVAKARAN, GEETHA AND DEEPTHI IN` `FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED` `NO.2994/2011 OF SRO, KUZHALMANNAM` `EXECUTED ON 31/10/2011 BY` `M.P.DIVAKARAN, GEETHA AND DEEPTHI IN` `FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER DATED` `10/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF MADHUMATHI` `JAYAKRISHNAN.`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER DATED` `26/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF MADHUMATHI` `JAYAKRISHNAN.`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED` `NUMBER 2775/2007 OF SRO, KUZHALMANNAM` `DATED 06/12/2007.`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `04/03/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST`

¶53

¶54

W.P.(C) No.27489 of 2022.

¶55

RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
01/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
23/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF
P.R.VENKITARAYAN.
Exhibit P10A TRUE COPY OF THE LAYOUT OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
Exhibit P11A TRUE COPY OF SITE APPROVAL AND
BUILDING PERMIT DATED 05/07/2022
ISSUED BY THE KANNADI GRAM PANCHAYAT
IN FAVOUR OF P.R.VENKITARAYAN.

Radhika Easwaran v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhika Easwaran 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohankumar K.G. Vs the Kochi Municipal Corporation

Poly Jose v Vs State of Kerala

Lyza @ Elizabeth James Vs the District Collector

Zeenath M.S. Vs Rajeev Kumar Chaudhary

Narayanan P.R. Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Palakkad

Peethambaran A.B Vs the District Geologist