Muhammed Basheer vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 16234 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 19537 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

          MUHAMMED BASHEER,AGED 34 YEARS,S/O.ABDUL KHADER,
          VELLANCHOLA HOUSE, MANATHUMANGALAM, PERINTHALMANNA,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.

          BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS



RESPONDENT:

          THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.

          GP SRI.P.S.APPU


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 19537 OF 2020
                                        2



                                  JUDGMENT

As per Ext P2 order dated 08.03.2018, the

petitioner was granted permission in terms of Clause 6(2)

of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, for conversion of

the nature of 5 cents of property belonging to him, for

the purpose of construction of a residential building

therein. In Ext P2 order, a condition was imposed that

the construction must be completed within two years. The

petitioner was unable to complete construction within the

said period whereupon, he filed an application seeking

extension of time. As per Ext P4 order, the application

was dismissed. It is challenging the same that the writ

petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also the learned Government Pleader.

3. A reading of Ext P4 shows that, no reason is

stated therein for rejection of the petitioner's

application. It cannot be said that there was any

inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in WP(C) NO. 19537 OF 2020

submitting the application. Though the very authority of

the respondent to impose a condition in the nature as

mentioned in Ext P2 is something to be considered, I do

not think that, in the nature of the grievance raised in

the present case and direction being granted as per this

judgment, the issue needs to be adverted to. It would be

sufficient if the extension of time as sought for by the

petitioner is granted. It is to be noted that, the period

of extension as sought for by the petitioner on

07.07.2020 must have expired.

In the said circumstances it is ordered that, if the

petitioner submits fresh application for extension of

time, in the nature as sought for in the application

dated 07.07.2020, the respondent shall grant extension of

time, having due consideration to the reason projected by

the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE vdv WP(C) NO. 19537 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19537/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 29.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.3.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED 26.2.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.9.2020.