Vengalil Narayanikutty @ Ambujam, Vs Revenue Divisional Office

¶1

2025:KER:22265

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶6

WP(C) NO. 42373 OF 2024

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

VENGALIL NARAYANIKUTTY @ AMBUJAM, AGED 76 YEARS,W/O. (LATE) C.V. DAMODARAN NAIR, PAYYANUR AMSOM DESOM, KELOTH, PO. PAYYANUR, PAYYANUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307

¶9

BY ADVS. M.V.AMARESAN S.S.ARAVIND SANKARANARAYANAN.P

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AGED 24 YEARS,OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE TOWER, COURT ROAD, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670141

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

Smt.Amminikutty.K, Sr.G.P

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.C No.42373 of 2024

2

2025:KER:22265

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of a property having an extent of 0.0809 hectares of land comprised in Sy. No.17/121 in Payyannur Village in Payyannur Taluk. As the property was described in the revenue records as “Nanja” even though the property stood reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application in Form 6. As part of processing of the said application, Ext.P4 notice was issued to the petitioner, by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 10.11.2021, requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,51,700/(Rupees ten lakhs fifty one thousand and seven hundred only). However, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 raising an objection that she is not liable to pay the said amount.

¶20

She submitted a representation to exempt the petitioner to making the payment, in view of the fact that, as per Serial No 1 in the Schedule of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules read with Rule 12 (9), the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment as the extent

¶21

W.P.C No.42373 of 2024

¶22

3

¶23

2025:KER:22265 to the property of the petitioner, is less than 25 cents. According to the petitioner the property in question was purchased by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 document which was on 23.08.2011. However, the said representation was rejected as per Ext.P7, on the reason that, the file pertaining to the application of the case is already closed for non-payment of the amount demanded as per Ext.P4. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, challenging Exts.P4 and P7.

¶24

Heard, Sri.S.S Aravind, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Amminikutty K, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶25

The contention raised by the petitioner seeking exemption from the payment is based on the fact that the extent of the petitioner's property is less than 25 cents. It is a fact that, the extent of the property of the petitioner is only less than 20 cents which is evident from Ext.P1 document. Of course, in Ext.P8, which is a report submitted by the Village Officer to the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is mentioned that in

¶26

W.P.C No.42373 of 2024

¶27

4

¶28

2025:KER:22265

¶29

addition to the property referred to in Ext.P1, the petitioner is also having yet another item of property lying contiguous to the property in question and the total extent exceeds 25 cents. However, in the said report itself, it is mentioned that both the properties were procured by the petitioner as per two different documents.

¶30

Therefore, in the light of the observations made by this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector v. Dr. A.V. Sajeev [2023 (5) KHC 242], the lands purchased prior to 30.12.2017 by different documents would be qualified for exemption, if the extent of the subject property is less than 25 cents. Thus, in the light of the above, the fact that the petitioner possesses another property lying contiguous to the property sought to be reclaimed, cannot be treated as a reason to deny the exemption otherwise available to the petitioner, as the said property is covered by a different title deed.

¶31

In such circumstances, I am of the view that, some interference is necessary. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Exts.P4 and P7 with a direction to the

¶32

W.P.C No.42373 of 2024

¶33

5

¶34

2025:KER:22265

¶35

respondent to restore and re-consider Ext.P2 application in Form 6, and to pass appropriate orders, in the light of the observations made by this Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

rpk

¶40

W.P.C No.42373 of 2024

¶41

6

¶42

2025:KER:22265

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42373/2024

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED JENM SALE DEED NO. 3493/2011 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE(SRO), PAYYANNUR DATED 23-082011 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14-09-2021 IN PROPER FORM BEFORE THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 27-10-2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. L- 10521/21 DATED 10-11-2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 2.5.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 19-10-2024 FILED IN W.P(C) NO.20607/2024 BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-062024, OBTAINED UNDER RTI Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 4-7-2024

Vengalil Narayanikutty @ Ambujam, v. Revenue Divisional Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vengalil Narayanikutty @ Ambujam, v. Revenue Divisional Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nish P v Vs the State of Kerala

Philomina Joseph Vs J. Thajudeen

Santha Sreekumar, Vs Sale Officer

Dr. Anoop Kumar, Vs the District Collector

Shibu U, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Palakkad

Kanhiroli Laila, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode