Kerala High Court
Noorudeen vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2017
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 14820 of 2018
PETITIONER :
NOORUDEEN,
S/O ALI, ANCHAKULAM HOUSE,
HMT COLONY P.O.,
KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SALIM V.S.
SMT.K.S.HASEENA
RESPONDENTS :
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANATHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FOR KOCHI-682001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANOOR TALUK-682011.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THRIKKAKARA NORTH -682033.
5. THE LOCAL LEVAL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KALAMASSERY-682021.
BY SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04-05-2018, ALONG WITH WPC.14828/2018 & WPC.14821/2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
WP(C).No. 14820 of 2018 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1401/69 OF
S.R.O.EDAPPALLY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 11/9/2017
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF BASIC TAX
REGISTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA
BANK DATED ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3/4/2018
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
5.5.2018
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------------
W.P. (C) Nos. 14820, 14821 and 14828 of 2018
----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioners alleges that they have invoked the statutory jurisdiction of the competent Authority under Section 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order). The said application has been produced by the petitioners in these writ petitions as Exhibit P5. The petitioners alleges that the said application is yet to be considered by the Authorities and that delay in consideration of the same is prejudicing them irreparably.
2. I notice that Exhibit P5 application is stated to be pending before the competent Authority under the KLU Order. It is the statutory function vested on the competent Authority by the specific provisions of the KLU Order. In such circumstances, I see no impediment in the competent Authority under the KLU Order in taking up the application and considering the same. W.P. (C) Nos. 14820, 14821 & 14828 of 2018 -2-
3. However, it is the specific case of the petitioners that their property was re-claimed prior to 2008 and that it has been included in the data bank showing the conversion to be prior to 2008. They have produced Exhibit P4 in support of his assertion. If this is so, obviously, the competent Authority under the KLU Order is statutorily obligated to consider the application in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015 (1) KLT 984).
4. I, therefore, direct the competent Authority under the KLU Order before whom Exhibit P5 application is pending to consider the same and issue appropriate orders thereon in strict compliance with all the imperative and mandatory requirements and procedural prescriptions therein. This exercise shall be completed by the competent Authority not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P. (C) Nos. 14820, 14821 & 14828 of 2018 -3-
5. The writ petitions are ordered as above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE EB/04.05.2018