Maimu vs The Revenue Divisional ...

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6368 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 June, 2022

Kerala High Court
Maimu vs The Revenue Divisional ... on 3 June, 2022
WP(C) No.7572/2022                       1/3

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
              Friday, the 3rd day of June 2022 / 13th Jyaishta, 1944
                    IA.NO.2/2022 IN WP(C) NO. 7572 OF 2022 (V)
   PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

          S MAIMU, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. KASIM HAJI, SARVATHINTAVIDA, BEACH
          ROAD, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673103., REPRESENTED BY HER SON AND
          POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AFSAL S., S/O. KAREEM, AGED 37 YEARS,
          SARVATHINTAVIDA, BEACH ROAD, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673103.

   RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL
         OFFICE, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, KERALA - 673 101.
      2. THE TAHASILDAR KOYILANDY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
         PIN - 673 305.
      3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER VIYYUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
         673 307.
      4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE
         DISTRICT - 673 305.
      5. KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY KOYILANDY P. O., KOZHIKODE - 673 305,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.


        Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
   affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to correct in the
   operative portion in paragraph No.2 of the judgment, in sentence "The 1st
   respondent is directed to reconsider Exhibit P4 application in so far as
   it relates to 8.14 ares of land for the purpose of exclusion from the data
   bank having regard to of Exhibits P5, P10, P11 and P14 reports and the
   judgments referred above", by replacing "8.14" with "29.19" in the said
   sentence in the Judgment dated 04/04/2022 in W.P.(C) No.7572/2022.


        This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
   and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this court's judgment
   dated 04.04.2022 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.BABU KARUKAPADATH,
   M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, P.U.VINOD KUMAR, ARYA RAGHUNATH, VAISAKHI V.,
   T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ, AJWIN P LALSON, MOHAMED HISHAM P, KARUKAPADATH WAZIM
   BABU, P.LAKSHMI & AISWARYA ANN JACOB, Advocates for the petitioner in
   I.A/WP(C) and of GOVERNMENT PLEADER for R1 to R4 in I.A/WP(C), the court
   passed the following:
 WP(C) No.7572/2022                             2/3




                                       T.R. RAVI, J.
                       --------------------------------------------
                                    I. A. No. 2 of 2022
                                             in
                               W. P. (C). No. 7572 of 2022
                        --------------------------------------------
                          Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2022

                                           ORDER

The petition has been filed seeking a correction of a typographical error which has crept into the judgment. The error pointed out in the petition is a typographical error and what was intended in the place of 8.14 Ares was 29.19 Ares, which was the subject matter which was being considered as is evident from paragraph 1 of the judgment.

In such circumstances, the petition is allowed. In the last paragraph of the judgment, the words "to reconsider Ext.P4 application in so far as it relates to 8.14 Ares of land" shall be replaced by "to reconsider Ext.P4 application relating to 29.19 Ares of land". Registry to issue a corrected copy of the judgment.

H/o.

Sd/-

                                                                 T.R. RAVI
                                                                   JUDGE


       Pn




03-06-2022                       /True Copy/                              Assistant Registrar
 WP(C) No.7572/2022                 3/3


Exhibit P4           A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY

THE PETITIONER IN 2011 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, SEEKING PERMISSION FOR USE OF THE LAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES SUBMITTED UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF KLU ORDER. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.03.2011, SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF THE KLU.

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REPORT DATED 28.06.2021 SUBMITTED FROM THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING & ENVIRONMENT CENTRE TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON EXHIBIT P9 FORM 5 APPLICATION, REPORTING THAT IT IS NOT FIT FOR PADDY CULTIVATION AND ALSO THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY INCLUDED IN THE DATA BANK.

Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT STATING THAT, IN THE ENTIRE EXTENT OF PROPERTY, THERE IS NO PADDY OR WET LAND AND THAT THE SAME STANDS ALREADY CONVERTED.