Radhakrishnan Nair vs Revenue Divisional Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 7239 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

    TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.5418 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER:

               RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
               AGED 66 YEARS
               S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, LAKSHMI NIVAS,
               VELLAPPATTACHALIL HOUSE, IYYAD P.O.,
               UNNIKULAM, BALUSSERY-VIA,
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
               PIN-673 574

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
               SRI.M.G.SREEJITH
               SMT.K.S.ARCHANA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
               COLLECTORATE , CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020

      2        LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF UNNIKULAM GRAMA
               PANCHAYAT,
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
               THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, UNNIKULAM,
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673 574

      3        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               SIVAPURAM VILLAGE, THAMARASSERY TALUK,
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673 612

               SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN - GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.5418 OF 2021(B)

                                  2



                   W.P.(C) No.5418 of 2021
            -----------------------------------------------


                         JUDGMENT

Ext.P5 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.P5 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.P5 in accordance with law, if the

same is received and pending, after affording the petitioner an WP(C).No.5418 OF 2021(B)

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.

PV WP(C).No.5418 OF 2021(B)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 28.10.1985, EXECUTED BETWEEN SMT.SOBHANA AMMA AND PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1489/98 DATED 4.8.1998 OF THE SUB REGISTRY, BALUSSERY

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.4.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.4.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT