Disposed

Unnikrishnan K.V v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jul 2024WP(C)/24303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought disposal of his Form 5 application for removing his 4.05 Are property from the village Data Bank to construct a house. The court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to obtain a report from the Agricultural Officer and decide the Form 5 application on principles laid down in Basil.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 Form 5 application on report from Village Officer/Agricultural Officer, per Basil.

Unnikrishnan K.V Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

WP(C) No.24303/2024

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶6

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶7

WP(C) NO. 24303OF 2024

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

UNNIKRISHNAN K.V., AGED 72 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN NAIR, KAVUNGIL HOUSE, P.O.CHATTANUR,
VIA PERINGODE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679537

¶10

BY ADVS.N.ANAND

¶11

 RAJESH O.N.
 ROY ANTONY

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD DISTRICT KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013

¶15

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER RS ROAD, OTTAPALAM, PIN - 679101

¶16

4 VILLAGE OFFICER

¶17

THIRUMITTACODE II VILLAGE KARUKAPUTHOOR
CHAZHIYATTIRI, PIN - 679535

¶18

5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER THIRUMITTACODE II VILLAGE KARUKAPUTHOOR CHAZHIYATTIRI, PIN - 679535

¶19

6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE THIRUMITTACODE II VILLAGE KARUKAPUTHOOR CHAZHIYATTIRI REPRESENTED BY ITS AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PIN - 679535

¶20

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY K, SR.GP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶22

ON 08.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.24303/2024

: 2 :

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is preferred being aggrieved by the

¶27

non-consideration of Form 5 application for removing the property from the Data Bank.

¶28

The petitioner obtained 4.05 Ares of property in Thirumittacode II Village of Ottappalam Taluk (now in Pattambi Taluk) in a family partition. For the purpose of constructing a house in that property owned by him, he approached the authorities concerned. Then it is realised that the property is included in the Data Bank, but it shows that the property was converted in 2005.

¶29

The revenue authorities insisted the petitioner to submit an application in Form 5 for removing the property from the Data Bank. The property is situated in Thirumittacode II Village of Ottappalam Taluk which is having an extent of 4.05 Ares. It is further stated, the property was converted as dry land decades ago and has not been cultivated with any crop since then. It is also contended that as per Section 2(xii) and (xviii), the definitions are provided for a paddy land or a wet land. The said property does not come within the purview of those definitions. Moreover, the Data Bank is to be included with the property which had only utilised for paddy cultivation. However, the property of the petitioner included in the

¶30

WP(C) No.24303/2024

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

Data Bank has already been converted. On these assertions, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks disposal of Ext.P5 application dated 10.03.2023.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶34

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that it is not specifically mentioned that whether Ext.P3 is a draft or final Data Bank of Thirumittacode II Village. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that it is wrongly included in the Data Bank.

¶35

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶36

Section 5(4)(i) requires the LLMC to prepare a data bank with details of cultivable paddy land and wet land within its jurisdiction considering its status as of 12.08.2008. In support of this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court a reported decision in Basil v. Local Level Monitoring Committee [2024 (1) KHC 28] that held “the final Data Bank to be prepared should contain only the details of the property which are paddy land or wetland as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. There is no provision in the form prescribed for preparation of the final Data Bank, the Act and Rules of 2008 and in the Government order referred above to include any other property which is not a paddy land or a wet land in the Data Bank”.

¶37

WP(C) No.24303/2024

¶38

: 4 :

¶39

On considering the rival contentions and considering the

¶40

limited prayer in the Writ Petition, I am of the view that it is only to direct the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 application, on obtaining a report from the 4^th respondent Village Officer. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent is directed to obtain a report from the 5^th respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such report, the 3^rd respondent shall dispose of Ext.P4 within a period of two months thereafter, on principles laid down by this Court in Basil supra,

¶41

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

P.M. MANOJ

JUDGE

ncd

WP(C) No.24303/2024

: 5 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24303/2024

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED
03.03.2023 IN NO. KL09063200741/2023
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶51

Exhibit P2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY

¶52

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE DATA BANK PREPARED FOR THIRUMITTACODE
VILLAGE

¶53

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5
DATED 10.03.2023 PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3

¶54

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
26.06.2024 BEFORE RDO (WITHOUT
ENCLOSURES)
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
26.06.2024 IN NO. E779666/24
ACKNOWLEDGING EXT. P5 ISSUED BY THE
OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3

Unnikrishnan K.V v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan K.V 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K Sreenivasan Vs Director of Public Instructions

Sooraj. M Vs the State of Kerala

Lasitha. K. Vs the Authorized Officer

Dominic K. Felix Vs State of Kerala

Alavi Haji Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Ravi Rajan P.R, Vs Parakkadav Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary