IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18038 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
PRAMOD J.NINAN,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS NINAN, "ROHINI", 29/1050, JANATHA ROAD,
LANE 10, VYTTILA-682 019.
BY ADV C.K.SHERIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KUNNATHUNADU, PATTIMATTOM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 562.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE,
TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-683 561.
SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.18038 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of May 2022 The petitioner, who is holding 10 cents of land in Kunnathunadu Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk, has approached this Court seeking to direct the 1 st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 and P7 applications, within a time frame.
2. The petitioner states that he is a retired Colonel and he holds 10 cents (4.05 Ares) of property comprised in Survey Nos.224/11-3 and 224/15-3 in Kunnathunadu Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk. The land is a garden land. However, it has been described as 'Nilam' in Data Bank and Revenue records.
3. The petitioner would state that the property of the petitioner is not a paddy land and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The petitioner wanted to make certain constructions in his property and approached the Panchayat. WP(C) NO.18038 OF 2022 3 The Panchayat authorities informed that unless the nature of the land is changed in the Revenue records, application of the petitioner cannot be entertained. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 application in Form 5 for removing the land from the Data Bank. As the applications were made to be filed online mandatorily, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 application online. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P6 application under Form 6 to make necessary changes in the nature of land in the BTR. The delay in considering Exts.P6 and P7 will cause undue hardship to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have granted permission to the owners of nearby lands to utilise their land for other purposes invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
4. The learned Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P7 Form 5 application has been filed by the petitioner very recently on 25.05.2022. The WP(C) NO.18038 OF 2022 4 Government Pleader further pointed out that consideration of Ext.P7 Form 5 application would require gathering of data and obtaining reports from various authorities. Furthermore, Ext.P6 Form 6 application can be considered only after the petitioner gets the property removed from the Data Bank. Therefore, unless Ext.P7 application of the petitioner is allowed, Ext.P6 application cannot be considered.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
6. The petitioner is the owner of 4.05 Ares of land in Kunnathunadu Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk in Ernakulam District. According to the petitioner, the land is not a paddy land or wetland. In order to use the land in a more profitable way, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 application for removal of the land from Data Bank and Ext.P6 application for change of nature of the land in Revenue records. WP(C) NO.18038 OF 2022 5
7. Exts.P6 and P7 applications are made by the petitioner invoking the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder. As the petitioner has invoked statutory remedies, the competent authority, namely the 1 st respondent, is bound to consider the applications within a reasonable time and take a decision thereon, in accordance with law.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 application and take a decision thereon, within a period of three months. Depending upon the outcome of Ext.P7 application, the 1 st respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P6, within a further period of six weeks. While considering Ext.P7 application, the 1 st respondent shall also advert to Ext.P4.
sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.18038 OF 2022 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18038/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2968/98 OF PUTHENCRUZ SRO DATED 16.07.1998 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK CONCERNING PETITIONERS PROPERTY. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF KLU PERMISSION (ORDER DATED 13.10.1995) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ) GRANTED TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 11.04.2022 IN FORM NO.5 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 17.04.2022 IN FORM 6 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS FEE RECEIPT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM NO.5 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH ONLINE DATED 25.05.2022.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL