Partly allowed

Noufal a. K v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC29 Jan 2024WP(C)/987/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of Form 5 application under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Court set aside the impugned order as it was not a speaking order and KSRSEC report was not obtained. Directed reconsideration within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order (Ex.P3) set aside. First respondent directed to reconsider Form 5 application within three months and obtain KSRSEC report.

Noufal a. K Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 9TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 987 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NOUFAL A. K
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O OF A.K ABDUL RAHIMAN, KODIYERI, TEMPLE GATE P.O
THALASSERY KANNUR, PIN – 670102

¶8

BY ADV SARATH M.S.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE RDO, PARAKKUNNAM, VYDYUTH NAGAR,
PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001

¶11

2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHUPARIYARAM II PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678731

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PUTHUPARIYARAM II, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678731 SMT. AMMINIKKUTTY SR. GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 987 OF 2024

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶18

(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs, orders or directions commanding the 1^st respondent to reconsider the Form 5 application after calling for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre and exclude the property of the petitioner from data bank, in the interest of justice.

¶19

(ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or other appropriate writs orders or direction, call for the records leading up to Exhibit P-3 and to quash the same.

¶20

(iii) Issue a Writ to declare that 1^st respondent is duty bound to pass orders on statutory application only after calling for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶21

(iv) To dispense with the production of English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with the writ petition in the interest of justice;

¶22

Petitioner is the owner of a property having an extent of 4.05 Ares of land in Resurvey No.299/36 situated in Palakkad Taluk in Palakkad District. When the petitioner came to know that the property is included in the Data Bank, he filed an application under Form No.5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The grievance of the

¶23

WP(C) NO. 987 OF 2024

¶24

¶25

petitioner is that without following any procedure and without

¶26

making an attempt to ascertain as to whether the property was reclaimed before 12.08.2008, the application was rejected. Ext.P3 is the order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶28

learned Government Pleader.

¶29

This Court perused Ext.P5 order.

¶30

The 1^st respondent dismissed the Form No.5

¶31

application blindly relying the report of the Agricultural Officer. It is not a speaking order. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) report is also not obtained. The petitioner also submitted that the 1^st respondent has not even visited the property of the petitioner. There is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The order is passed without adverting the contention of the petitioner. Moreover, Ext.P3 is not a speaking order. The KSRSEC report is not obtained before deciding the matter. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P3 is to be set aside and the matter is to be reconsidered by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of

¶32

WP(C) NO. 987 OF 2024

¶33

¶34

with the following directions:

¶35

Ext.P3 is set aside.

¶36

The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the

¶37

Form No.5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Petitioner is free to submit an application before the appropriate authority for getting KSRSEC report within two weeks and if such an application is filed, the authority concerned will consider the same and to do the needful to obtain the report in accordance with law.

¶39

The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with the copy of this writ petition with exhibits before the 1^st respondent for compliance.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

nak

¶44

WP(C) NO. 987 OF 2024

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 987/2024

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO
KL09050811475/2023 DATED 18-12-2023
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICER,
PUTHUPARIYARAM 2 DATED 23.12.2023
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.RDOPKD/4886/2021-
J1 BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.05.2022

Noufal a. K v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noufal a. K 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheeja. S. Vs The State of Kerala

Sherafudeen B.P Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

M/S. Edayan Aggregates Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa)

Rony Babu @ Rony Mathew Vs State of Kerala

C. Lakshmanan Vs Sri. Shanavas S, IAS

Dr. Shamnath a Rahim Vs Geromic George