Allowed

Muhammed Salih Tma, v. State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government

Kerala HC11 Apr 2024WP(C)/36189/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order requiring payment under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 for considering his Form 6 application, contending his property was below 25 cents and covered by prior judgments of this Court.

What did the court decide?

Condition in Ext.P5 requiring payment under Rule 12(9) quashed; second respondent directed to pass final orders on the Form 6 application within three months without insisting on the fee.

Muhammed Salih Tma, Vs State of Kerala, Represented by… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 36189 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUHAMMED SALIH TMA,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O ABDULL HAJI,RESIDING AT SAINAS VILLA,
PADANNA DEASATH,PADANNA VILLAGE, POOCHAKKAL -
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 68852
BY ADVS.
KARTHIKA MARIA
ABI BENNY AREECKAL
SANTHOSH MATHEW (SR.)
ARUN THOMAS
ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
DIANA LAURANCE PAUL
SHINTO MATHEW ABRAHAM

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,CHERTHALA , KERALA, PIN - 686673

¶11

3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THYCATTUSSERY, CHERTHALA TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528

¶12

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE,CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY K, SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 36189 OF 2023

¶17

..2..

¶18

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

¶19

=========================

¶20

W.P.(C). No. 36189 of 2023

¶21

========================= Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2024

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order passed by

¶24

the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.27,031/- under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, ‘the Act’) for considering the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner based on Exts.P6 and P7 deeds. The petitioner submits that the extent of the property of the petitioner is less than 25 cents as of 30.12.2017. The case is not covered by the ambit of clause 2 of the government order dated 25.02.2021. Further, the issue is covered by the judgments of this Court in Baby M.K. and Others v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (6) KHC 318) and

¶25

Sumesh U and another v. the Revenue Divisional

¶26

WP(C) NO. 36189 OF 2023

¶27

..3..

¶28

Officer, Palakkad and Others (2023 (3) KHC 431) .

¶29

In view of the above judgments, the writ petition

¶30

is allowed, condition in Ext.P5 directing the petitioner to remit amounts under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 for considering Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner, is quashed.

¶31

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to pass final orders on the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner without insisting on the payment of fee applying the principles laid down by the judgments stated above, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if it is otherwise entitled under the Act.

¶32

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 36189 OF 2023

¶38

..4..

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36189/2023

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :

¶41

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT` `NO.KL04021906589/2022 DATED 07.07.2022`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE` `DATABANK DATED 07.07.2022 PREPARED FOR`
	`THE THYCATTUSSERY VILLAGE ISSUED BY` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION`
	`DATED 11/07/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE` `PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)` `NO. 10331 OF 2023 DATED 24.03.2023`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE` `NO.1940/2023 DATED 16.08.2023 ISSUED` `BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING` `NO.2133 OF 2019, SRO PANAVALLY DATED` `16.10.2019`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SAID G.O (ORDINARY)` `NO.1166/2021/REVENUE DATED 25-02-2021`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `30.03.2023 IN SUMESH U AND ANOTHER V.` `THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,`
	`PALAKKAD AND OTHERS [WP(C) NO. 3538 OF` `2023]`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF WILL NO. 71 OF 2004 DATED` `02.09.2004`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 3352 OF` `2006` `OF` `PANAVALLY,` `SRO` `DATED` `04.12.2006`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1038 OF` `2018` `OF` `PANAVALLY,` `SRO` `DATED` `23.04.2018`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.315 OF 2018` `DATED 06.02.2018 OF PANAVALLY, SRO`

¶42

// True Copy // PA To Judge

Muhammed Salih Tma, v. State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Salih Tma, v. State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government

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

P.P. Cherian, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha

Brigade Hospitality Services Limited, Vs State of Kerala

Brigade Hospitality Sevices Limited, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Ashif Kanchirathingal, Vs the Secretary

Vende Infrastructure and Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

George Kuruvilla, Vs State of Kerala