Illyas Kooliyangal vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 8810 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

   WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.23356 OF 2020(T)


PETITIONERS:

      1        ILLYAS KOOLIYANGAL
               S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AYISHA MANZA,
               NEAR KUSHAL NAGAR RAILWAY GATE, KANHANGAD,
               KASARGOD-671 315.

      2        JASMIN ILLYAS,
               W/O.ILLYAS, AYISHA MANZA,
               NEAR KUSHAL NAGAR RAILWAY GATE, KANHANGAD,
               KASARGOD-671 315,
               REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
               MR.K.ABDUL NAZER, AYISHA ENCLAVE,
               NEAR RAILWAY GATE,
               KANHANGAD-671 315.

               BY ADVS.
               SHRI.C.C.ABRAHAM
               SRI.ALEX ABRAHAM

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
               KASARGOD AT KANHANGAD-671 315.

      2        THE TAHASILDAR, HOSDURG,
               KANHANGAD P.O., PIN-671 315.

      3        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               HOSDURG VILLAGE, KANHANGAD P.O.,
               PIN-671 315.

      4        THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
               REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENOR,
               (WITHIN LIMITS OF MUNICIPALITY OF KANHANGAD),
               THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
               KANHANGAD P.O., PIN-671 315.

      5        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR,
               KASARGOD-671 123.

      6        STATE OF KERALA,
 WP(C).No.23356 OF 2020(T)

                             2

           REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE,
           2ND FLOOR, ANNEX 1, SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.


           SRI.RANJITA, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.23356 OF 2020(T)

                                     3



                      W.P.(C) No.23356 of 2020
               -----------------------------------------------


                             JUDGMENT

Petitioners own two items of lands measuring 2.43

Ares and 10.93 Ares in Re-survey No.74 of Kanhangad Village.

It is stated by the petitioners that though the said lands are

shown in the revenue records as paddy lands, they were

converted as dry lands long prior to the coming into force of

the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

(the Act). Nevertheless, it is alleged that the said lands were

included in the data bank prepared under the Act. The

petitioners therefore preferred Ext.P10 application on

16.08.2017 before the Local Level Monitoring Committee

constituted under the Act for exclusion of the lands from the

data bank. It is stated by the petitioners that since Ext.P10

application was not considered, they preferred Ext.P2

application also before the Local Level Monitoring Committee

on 03.05.2018 for the said purpose. It is stated by the WP(C).No.23356 OF 2020(T)

petitioners that even Ext.P2 application has not been

considered by the Local Level Monitoring Committee. It is

stated that since the power to exclude lands from the data

bank was conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officers in

terms of the amendment introduced to the Act in the

meanwhile, the petitioners preferred an application before the

Revenue Divisional Officer on 24.01.2020 for the said purpose.

On the said application, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed

Ext.P8 order excluding the lands of the petitioners from the

data bank. Thereupon, the petitioners preferred Ext.P9

application invoking Section 27A of the Act and instituted this

writ petition thereafter seeking a direction to the respondents

to exempt them from the payment of fees for the said

application under Section 27A(3) of the Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. As noted, the petitioners preferred an

application for exclusion of their lands from the data bank for

the first time only on 16.08.2017. The case of the petitioners

in the writ petition is that had the said application been WP(C).No.23356 OF 2020(T)

disposed of by the competent authority before 30.12.2017,

they could have preferred an application under the Land

Utilisation Order for making use of the lands for other

purposes and in that event, they would not have been

constrained to prefer an application under Section 27A of the

Act and would not have been burdened to pay the fees for the

said application as provided for under Section 27A(3) of the

Act. The Act came into force as early as on 12.08.2008. The

petitioners have not pleaded as to when the data bank

containing the lands owned by them has been published.

Admittedly, the petitioners preferred Ext.P10 application for

exclusion of the lands only on 16.08.2017. Section 27A was

introduced to the Act with effect from 30.12.2017. The

materials on record indicate that the petitioners did not

pursue Ext.P10 application. Instead, they preferred Ext.P2

application for the very same purpose on 03.05.2018 and filed

a writ petition thereafter before this Court as W.P.(C) No.16919

of 2018 for a direction to the Local Level Monitoring

Committee to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application.

The materials also indicate that the petitioners did not even WP(C).No.23356 OF 2020(T)

pursue Ext.P2 application and instead, they preferred another

application on 24.01.2020 before the first respondent in Form

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

Rules. In a case of this nature, according to me, the

petitioners cannot be heard to contend that had Ext.P10

application been disposed of by the competent authority

before 30.12.2017, they could have preferred an application

under the Land Utilization Order for making use of the lands

for other purposes.

The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without

merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

PV WP(C).No.23356 OF 2020(T)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE PETITIONERS.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 03.05.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.05.2018.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.05.2018 IN WPC 16919/2018.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.11.2018 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.02.2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.02.2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2020 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REMOVING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATA BANK.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-6 APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21.08.2020 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16/08/2017.