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 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

P.R.Ranjan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 10 October, 2019

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

  THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941

                    WP(C).No.26886 OF 2019(I)


PETITIONER :-

             P.R.RANJAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.P.K RAMAN,
             RESIDING AT SHIVARANJINI PUNNAKKAL (EAST)
             ELAMAKKARA P.O, COCHIN - 682 026.

             BY ADVS.SRI.S.RUSSEL
                     SRI.V.R.ARUN
                     SRI.P.ANTO THOMAS

RESPONDENTS :-

      1      THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
             FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682 001.

      2      THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
             COCHIN CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 011
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER (ASSISTANT FILED
             OFFICER)

      3      AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
             KRISHIBHAVAN, COCHIN CORPORATION, VYTTILA,
             ERNAKULAM - 682 019.

      4      THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM - 682 024.

      5      COCHIN CORPORATION,
             ERNAKULAM - 682 011
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

      6      TAHSILDAR (LR)
             KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

             BY SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANL, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.26886 OF 2019(I)

                                    -: 2 :-



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner asserts that his property, having an extent of 2.750 cents comprised of in Sy.No.130/29A of Edappally South Village, is a garden land, remaining as such for the last several years and much prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act' for short), but that it has been incorrectly included in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) constituted under the provisions of the said Act. He, therefore, submits that he had preferred Exhibit P5 application before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) under the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act ('the Act' for short) but that no action has been taken until now and prays that the same be directed to be taken up and disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents submits that if WP(C).No.26886 OF 2019(I) -: 3 :- Exhibit P5 application is still pending before the RDO, then there is no legal impediment in the same being taken up and considered in terms of law; however, praying that this Court make no affirmative declaration on the entitlement of the petitioner to any relief as sought for by him in the said application and leave it to the said Authority to take an apposite decision in terms of law.

3. When I consider the afore submissions, it is obvious that going by the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Act since the Data Bank has not been finalised, it is solely for the RDO to take a decision on the request of the petitioner to remove his property from the same. I am, therefore, of the view that this Court would be justified in ordering this wit petition directing consideration of Exhibit P5 application within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 1st respondent - RDO to take up Exhibit P5 application of the petitioner and dispose of the WP(C).No.26886 OF 2019(I) -: 4 :- same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I clarify that I have not considered the merits of any of the contentions of the petitioner and that it will be up to the RDO to take a decision on Exhibit P5 application, after obtaining the satellite images and requisite reports from the other officials as also after conducting necessary site inspection and to issue a final order within the time frame afore fixed.

Needless to say, the petitioner will also, as and when called upon to do so, remit the requisite fee for obtaining the satellite images.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Jvt/9.10.2019 WP(C).No.26886 OF 2019(I) -: 5 :- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE IS HAVING NO.36405670 DATED 06-11-2018.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THANDPPER ACCOUNT OF THE PROPERTY IN SURVEY NO.130/27A WITH SERIAL NO.2018/74583/07 WITH THANDAPPER ACCOUNT NO. 11431.
EXHIBIT P2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THANDPPER ACCOUNT OF THE PROPERTY IN SURVEY NO.130/27B WITH SERIAL NO.2018/74584/07 WITH THANDAPPER ACCOUNT NO. 11431 EXHIBIT P2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THANDPPER ACCOUNT OF THE PROPERTY IN SURVEY NO.130/29A WITH SERIAL NO.2018/74585/07 WITH THANDAPPER ACCOUNT NO. 11431.
EXHIBIT P2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THANDPPER ACCOUNT OF THE PROPERTY IN SURVEY NO.130/29B WITH SERIAL NO.2018/74587/07 WITH THANDAPPER ACCOUNT NO. 11431.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATABANK.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 01- 03-2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01-06-2017 IN WP(C) NO. 31500 OF 2014.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE