Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Roji Antony vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 2 June, 2018

Author: Shaji P.Chaly

Bench: Shaji P.Chaly

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT:

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

            TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1940

                        WP(C).No. 24852 of 2018


PETITIONER :


          ROJI ANTONY,
          AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.ANTHONY,
          PAREKKADAN HOUSE,
          PUTHENCHIRA-680 682.


     BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
             SRI.ARUN THOMAS
             SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
             SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
             SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
             SMT.MARIA ROY
             SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
             SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL



RESPONDENTS :


1.        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          CHEMMANDA ROAD,
          IRINJALAKUDA-680 125.


2.        LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
          PUTHENCHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
          REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
          KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHENCHIRA-680 682.


3.        VILLAGE OFFICER,
          PUTHENCHIRA-680 682.


        BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
     24-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

EL
WP(C).No. 24852 of 2018 (F)

                                       APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS


EXHIBIT P1         TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.1688033 DATED
                   02.06.2018.

EXHIBIT P1(A)      PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY PERTAINING TO
                   SURVEY NUMBERS.383/6 AND 383/8.

EXHIBIT P2         TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK EXTRACT PERTAINING
                   TO THE BELOW DESCRIBED SURVEY NUMBERS.

EXHIBIT P3         TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE
                   PROPERTY FROM THE DATA BANK SUBMITTED TO THE
                   2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3(A)      TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD OF THE
                   APPLICATION SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
                   21.06.2018.

EXHIBIT P4         TRUE COPY OF THE CLAUSE 6(2) APPLICATION
                   SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.06.2018.

EXHIBIT P4(A)      TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE CLAUSE 6(2)
                   APPLICATION NUMBERED AS B2-106/18 SUBMITTED TO
                   THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.06.2018.


RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS


             NIL

                                                         TRUE COPY



                                                        P.S. TO JUDGE

EL

26.7.2018

                    SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
            ---------------------------------------
               W.P.(C). No. 24852 OF 2018
            ---------------------------------------
                Dated this the 24th day of July, 2018



                             JUDGMENT

According to the petitioner, petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 30.76 ares of property in Re- survey No. 383/6 and 8.09 ares of property in Re-survey No. 383/8 of Puthenchira Village, Mukandapuram Taluk. The case of the petitioner is that even though the property is remaining as dry land, it is included in the data bank, constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act, 2008, as converted land. In order to remove the property from the data bank, the petitioner has submitted Ext. P3 application before the second respondent, which is pending consideration. The petitioner has also submitted Ext.P4 application before the first respondent, as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for utilisation of the land for different purposes other than W.P.(C). No. 24852 of 2018 2 paddy cultivation. Petitioner seeks direction for early consideration of aforesaid applications.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext. P3 application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, and attain finality, at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner is able to secure an enabling order in his favour, Ext.P4 application shall be considered by the first respondent, at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within three months from the date of production of the order from the second respondent. The petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of this writ petition along with appended documents before the appropriate statutory authorities.

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE DCS