Kerala High Court
Sherry Peter vs Revenue Deivisional Officer (Rdo) on 12 November, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.30385 OF 2019(W)
PETITIONER:
SHERRY PETER
AGED 48 YEARS
PETER JOSEPH,KAKKANATTU (H), PERUMBALLOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
SRI.S.SREEDEV
SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
SMT.NITHYA VIJAYAN
SMT.MINIKUMARY M.V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DEIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO)
MUVATTUPUZHA, MINI CIVIL STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661
2 MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661
3 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661
BY SRI.L.RAM MOHAN, SC,
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.30385 OF 2019(W)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner makes a limited plea that his representation, namely Ext.P5, preferred before the 1 st respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short), Muvattupuzha, be directed to be taken up and disposed of.
2. According to the petitioner, he was constrained to prefer Ext.P5 before the RDO in reply to Ext.P3 notice earlier issued by the said Authority. He asserts that the property mentioned in Ext.P3, on which he is making a construction is described as a 'garden land' even in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue Records and it is not included as a 'paddy land' in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act ('the Paddy Land Act' for short).
3. The petitioner says that he has made the constructions only in the area which is described as a 'purayidam' in the Revenue Records and the Data Bank and therefore, that Ext.P3, with respect to such properties, is not tenable. He says that he has explained all these in Ext.P5 and WP(C).No.30385 OF 2019(W) 3 prays that the RDO be directed to consider the same at the earliest.
4. The learned Government Pleader-Smt.Pooja Surendran submits that Ext.P3 has been issued on the basis of a report obtained by the RDO, that large extents of paddy land are being filled up by the petitioner; and therefore, that Ext.P5 cannot be normally entertained by the said Authority. She then adds that if, however, the petitioner's plea is that he is making the construction only in that area, which has been defined as a 'purayidam', both in the Revenue Records and the Data Bank, then the RDO can consider Ext.P5 to that extent, but not with respect to the properties which are included in the Data Bank as 'paddy land' or which are described as a 'paddy land' in the Revenue Records. She thus, prays that this writ petition be ordered on such terms.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, submits that he has nothing to submit on the issues raised in this writ petition, since the question of inclusion of the petitioner's property as a 'paddy land' either in the Data Bank or Basic Tax Register is not the one in which the Panchayat can WP(C).No.30385 OF 2019(W) 4 delve into. He says that the Panchayat is willing to abide by any directions to be issued by this Court.
6. Since the petitioner asserts that the area where he is making construction is not included either in the Data Bank prepared under the Paddy Land Act or in the Basic Tax Register and Revenue Records as a 'paddy land', I certainly deem it appropriate that the RDO must consider Ext.P5 and take a final decision on this issue immediately. This is because, if the property is a 'purayidam' for all purposes, then certainly, Ext.P3 cannot apply to such extents, though it may apply to all other extents which still remain as a 'paddy land' either in the Data Bank or in the Revenue Records.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 1 st respondent - RDO to take up Ext.P5 representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same, after affording him an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
I make it clear that though I have not entered into the merits of any of the contentions of the petitioner, the RDO will WP(C).No.30385 OF 2019(W) 5 be obligated to consider Ext.P5 from the angle as to whether the properties in question are excluded from the Data Bank as a 'paddy land' and whether they are defined as a 'garden land' in the Basic Tax Register and the Revenue Records; and then take a final decision with respect to such extents of property, while maintaining Ext.P3 to the rest of the properties, if any, which come under either of these two criterion.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE
WP(C).No.30385 OF 2019(W)
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.05.2017
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VELOOR KUNNAM VILLAGE EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 28.12.2016 ISSUED FROM MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2018 IN FILE NO A4-1873/18(20 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 067.08.2018 NUMBERED AS BA 172.16-17 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2019 ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF EXT.P4 APPLICATION EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 26.09.2019 IN W.P.C 25679 OF 2019