IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 29611 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ABDUL JALEEL,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA,
KARUPARACKAL HOUSE, KURUVAMBALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
JAFAR K., S/O. HAMSA ,AGED 38 YEARS,
KARUPARACKAL HOUSE, K.P. KULAMBA,
KURUVAMBALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM 679 338.
BY ADV K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SHANTI
NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 332.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, KURUVAMBALAM, KURUVAMBALAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM 679 338.
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
PULAMANTHOLE REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN , PULAMANTHOLE,
PULAMANTHOLE P.O., MALAPPURAM 679 323.
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN , PULAMANTHOLE, PULAMANTHOLE P.O.,
MALAPPURAM 679 323.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.29611/2021
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.29611 of 2021
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers: i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and to quash the same. ii. Issue a declaration that the lands having an extent of 08.01 Ares of comprised in Block No.1, re-survey no. 153/4-2 of Kuruvambalam village in Perinthalmanna Taluk, owned by the petitioner, are not paddy lands as defined in Section 2 (xii) of the 2008 Act for inclusion in the Data Bank.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the respondents 3 and 5 to submit a report on the lie and nature of the applied lands within a time limit as dictated by this Hon'ble Court.
iv. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to W.P.(C).No.29611/2021 3 grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, for the ends of justice.
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is in ownership of an extent of 08.01 Ares of properties comprised in Block No.1, Re-survey No.153/4-2 of Kuruvambalam village in Perinthalmanna Taluk. According to the petitioner, the subject properties were reclaimed/converted before 2008 and not suitable for paddy cultivation. It is also the case of the petitioner that except a small extent owned by the petitioner and his brother, the surrounding lands are under construction and cultivation aged at least 15 years. The fact is reported by the Agricultural Officer is the case of the petitioner. It is also stated in the writ petition that the 2nd respondent mechanically reiterated the decision of LLMC that the lands were not converted before 2008. The specific case of the petitioner is that no site inspection was conducted, no notice is issued to the petitioner and the KSREC report also is not obtained. Hence this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
W.P.(C).No.29611/2021 4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has not requested for KSREC report. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the order is passed after inspecting the property even though it is not mentioned specifically in the order. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the report of the KSREC is not mandatory and it is the discretion of the Revenue Divisional Officer to obtain the KSREC report.
5. This court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. A perusal of Ext.P6 will show that that it is not a speaking order. From Ext.P6 it is not clear whether the 2nd respondent inspected the property before passing orders. The petitioner has got a case that the KSREC report is not necessary in this case. The petitioner is free to file an application in accordance to law for getting the KSREC report. For facilitating the 2 nd respondent to pass a fresh order, Ext.P6 can be set aside.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
W.P.(C).No.29611/2021 5
1. Ext.P6 is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also after inspecting the property. The 2 nd respondent will also consider the request of the petitioner for the necessity of KSREC report in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The above exercise should be completed by the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
W.P.(C).No.29611/2021
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29611/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
690/2017 S.R.O. MOORKANAD (KOLATHORR). Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.03.2021.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 16.03.2020.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK DATED NIL.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 27.01.2021. Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2021.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT LANDS AND THE SURROUNDING LANDS.