Allowed

Jessy Abraham v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC7 Aug 2023WP(C)/6876/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the refusal of the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider a Form-6 application for Lands Record Exclusion due to non-notification of a corrected Data Bank. The Court held the refusal untenable in light of Government circulars.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 notice set aside; direction to 1st Respondent to consider Form-6 application (Ext.P5) within two months without insisting on notification of corrected Data Bank.

Jessy Abraham 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

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6876 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JESSY ABRAHAM
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O. K A. ABRAHAM, KUNNUKANDATHIL,
KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PIN – 689106

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
ANJANA S.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RDO OFFICE, PALLIKKARA ROAD THIRUVALLA - 689101

¶12

2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶13

REP. BY ITS CONVENER THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KUTTOOR, PIN - 689106

¶14

3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KUTTOOR, PIN - 689106

¶15

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KUTTOOR, PIN - 689106

¶16

SMT.DEVISREE R., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) No.6876 of 2023

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 7^th day of August, 2023

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to grant permission as sought for in Ext.P5 Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner. There is a challenge to Ext.P7 notice issued by the 1^st respondent as well.

¶23

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had approached the LLMC which had taken a decision to exclude the property of the petitioner from the Data Bank. However, on the ground that such exclusion has not been notified and the corrected Data Bank has not been published, the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner is not being considered by the 1^st respondent. It is submitted that this aspect is clear from Ext.P7 notice issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶24

¶25

WP(C) No.6876 of 2023

¶26

Having heard the Government Pleader and in view

¶27

of the fact that it is admitted by the 1^st respondent that the property of the petitioner has been excluded from the Data Bank by a decision of the LLMC before coming into force of the 2017 amendment in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, I am of the opinion that the refusal on the part of the 1^st respondent to consider the Form6 application submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the correction in the Data Bank has not been notified, is untenable. This is more so in view of the circular issued by the Government directing that such cases can be considered without waiting for the notification.

¶28

In the above view of the matter, Ext.P7 notice is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to take up Ext.P5 Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner and to consider and pass orders on the same, without insisting on the notification of the corrected Data Bank. Appropriate orders shall be passed

¶29

WP(C) No.6876 of 2023

¶30

¶31

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a

¶32

copy of this judgment.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.6876 of 2023

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6876/2023

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF`	`THE` `POS`	`SESSION`
	`CERTIFICATE DATE` `FROM THE VILLAGE O`	`D 25/04/2022` `FFICE, KUTTOOR`	`ISSUED`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `05/08/2017 ISSUED` `OFFICER, KUTTOOR`	`THE RECEIPT` `BY THE AGRIC`	`DATED` `ULTURAL`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`THE JUDGMENT`	`DATED`
	`12/03/2018 OF TH` `WP(C)NO.8295/2018`	`IS HON'BLE CO`	`URT IN`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `25/04/2018`	`THE NOTICE`	`DATED`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF TH` `24/09/2019 SUBMIT` `IN FORM NO.6 BEFOR`	`E APPLICATION` `TED BY THE PET` `E THE 1ST RESP`	`DATED` `ITIONER` `ONDENT`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 25/09/2019` `PETITIONER BEFORE`	`THE COVERING` `SUBMITTED B` `THE 1ST RESPON`	`LETTER` `Y THE` `DENT`
`Exhibit P7`	`COPY OF THE` `18/12/2022 ISSUED` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT`	`TRUE NOTICE` `TO THE PETITIO`	`DATED` `NER BY`

Jessy Abraham v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jessy Abraham 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

Capt. Vinod Narayanan Vs Village Officer

Susha Lonappan, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Satheesh Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Ravichandran Vs State of Kerala

James Vs State of Kerala

Muraleedharan T.K. Vs the District Collector