Moideenkutty vs Revenue Divisional Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 7096 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                  WP(C).No.5220 OF 2021(B)

PETITIONER:

              MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 41 YEARS
              S/O.ATHANKUTTY, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, KODUMUNDA
              P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679
              303.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED
              SHRI.UDAYAN M.V.

RESPONDENTS:

     1        REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
              OTTAPPALAM, R.S.ROAD, OTTAPPALAM,
              PALAKAKD DISTRICT-679 101.

     2        LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL
              OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, MUTHUTHAL,
              KOZHIKOTTIRI P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
              DISTRICT-679 303.

     3        DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
              ENVIRONEMNT CENTRE (KSREC),
              1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
              ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE
              CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695
              033.
 W.P.(C) No.5220 of 2021           2




OTHER PRESENT:

              GP. RAVI KRISHNAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.5220 of 2021                      3


                           W.P.(C) No.5220 of 2021
                    -----------------------------------------------


                                 JUDGMENT

Ext.P4 is an application preferred by the petitioner in

Form No.5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland

Rules for removal of the property of the petitioner referred to in the

writ petition from the data bank prepared in terms of the Kerala

conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The grievance

of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the

part of the first respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P4

application.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Government Pleader.

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case and the orders passed by this court in similar and

identical writ petitions, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ

petition directing the first respondent to take up and pass

appropriate orders on Ext.P4 in accordance with law, if the same is

received and pending, after affording the petitioner an opportunity

of hearing. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within three

months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment

along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. If the

application directed to be disposed of is found defective, the defect

shall be intimated to the petitioner by the first respondent

immediately on production of a copy of this judgment, and the first

respondent will be entitled to avail the time taken by the petitioner

to cure the defects in the said application also, for compliance of

the directions contained in the judgment. It is made clear that the

hearing in terms of this judgment can either be physical or through

video conference.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Ds 01.03.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF THE BUILDING NO.378/A OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF DATA BANK OF THE PETITIONER;S PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.07.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF 2ND RESPONDENT.