Sreedhar Narayana Swami vs Agricultural Officer

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 17536 OF 2022
PETITIONER

             SREEDHAR NARAYANA SWAMI,
             AGED 42 YEARS
             SON OF NARAYANA SWAMI, 3C, J.M. TOWER,
             PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT..
             REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - CHITHRA
             MAHADEVAN,
             AGED 54 YEARS, WIFE OF R.V. MAHADEVAN, VENKITA HOUSE,
             PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
             PIN 682 023.
             BY ADVS.
             S.VINOD BHAT
             ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
             GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R


RESPONDENTS:

     1       AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
             KRISHI BHAVAN, MARADU, NETTOOR P.O. PIN 682040.
     2       REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI.
             PIN 682 001.



             SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.17536 OF 2022
                                  2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of May, 2022 The petitioner is the owner of garden land in Re-Survey No.132/7-4 in Block No.13 of Maradu Village in Kanayannur Taluk.

2. The petitioner states that the property is included in Data Bank as 'Nilam'. In fact, the property ceased to be paddy land long back. The petitioner wants to develop the land. In the circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for removing the land from the Data Bank. The respondents are not acting thereon. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Agricultural Officer has already forwarded Ext.P3 report, which is in favour of the petitioner. The delay in taking decision on petitioner's application is causing undue hardship WP(C) NO.17536 OF 2022 3 to the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

5. In view of the facts and reasons stated in the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate decision on Ext.P2, the same being a statutory application.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent to take appropriate decision on Ext. P2 application submitted by the petitioner, if the same is received along with all supporting documents and paying the prescribed fee, if any. A decision shall be taken on Ext.P2, within a period of four months.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.17536 OF 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17536/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK ENTRY.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 23-11-2021 OF PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF REPORT OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.