Kerala High Court
Jincy vs State Of Kerala on 1 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 6765 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
JINCY
AGED 52 YEARS
VATTEKKATT HOUSE, P.O.KUNDALIYOOR,
ENGADIYOOR, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
K.P.SANTHI
SMT.TARA PREM
SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL
SMT.SARIMOL KAREETHARA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR-680003.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR-680003.
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, VATANAPILLY,
THRISSUR-680614.
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR-680506.
WP(C) No.6765/2021
:2 :
6 THE SECRETARY, VADANAPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
VADANAPILLY, THRISSUR-680614.
BY SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.6765/2021
:3 :
WP(C) No.6765/2021
:4 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2021
The petitioner and her husband are owners in
possession and enjoyment of 4.05 Ares of land comprised in
Survey No.357/2A of Vatanappilly Village of Chavakkad Taluk.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to direct the
3rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P4 application in the light of
Ext.P8 affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within
a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioner would submit that the petitioner and
her husband own the aforesaid 4.05 Ares of land which is
classified as 'Nanja' in the revenue records. Though the land
is included in the Data Bank, there is a remark in the Data
Bank that there are coconut trees aged more than 8 years in
the property. The petitioner has constructed a building in the
property. On completion of the building, the petitioner
WP(C) No.6765/2021
submitted application for regularisation.
3. However, the petitioner was informed that the
permission from the 3rd respondent-RDO is required to
regularise the construction and to allot number to the building.
Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
11.08.2017 to the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent
forwarded the same to the 3 rd respondent-RDO. The 3 rd
respondent thereafter issued proceedings dated 19.06.2018
and 26.07.2018 stating that report of the Local Level
Monitoring Committee is not available.
4. When the Act 28 of 2008 was introduced with effect
from 31.12.2017, the petitioner submitted a Form-5 application
seeking to remove the land in question from the Data Bank.
The petitioner was directed to pay a one time tax also to the
Village Officer. According to the petitioner, the 4 th respondent-
LLMC has removed the land of the petitioner from the Data
Bank. In such circumstances, the 3 rd respondent is liable to
be compelled to consider Ext.P4 application in the light of
Ext.P8.
WP(C) No.6765/2021
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
6. It emerges from the pleadings and arguments of the
parties in the writ petition that the land of the petitioner is
described as 'Nanja' land in the revenue records. According
to the petitioner, though the land is removed from the Land
Data Bank as per the request made by the petitioner, still, as
long as the description of the land in the revenue records is
'Nanja', the same will have to be appropriately corrected for
which the petitioner has to make an application in Form-6
attached to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008.
7. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has
already submitted Ext.P13 Form-6 application dated
09.01.2021. According to the petitioner, the Village Officer
has also submitted Ext.P14 mahazar. The petitioner would
submit that the land is under acquisition for public purpose
and the petitioner will get the monetary benefits of land
acquisition only if the buildings are numbered.
WP(C) No.6765/2021
8. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that
the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner being an
application of statutory nature, it should be considered by the
RDO expeditiously so that the petitioner can claim full benefit
of the land acquisition.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing
the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider
Ext.P13 Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner and
take a decision thereon expeditiously, within a period of two
months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/04.10.2021
WP(C) No.6765/2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6765/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA
BANK IN RESPECT OF SURVEY NO.357.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING
THE APPLICATION DATED 29.6.2017 ISSUED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A5 4163/17
DATED 6.7.2017 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
11.8.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARD NOTE DATED
11.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B2-
20939/2017/K.DIS DATED 19.6.2018 OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B2-
10174/2018/K.DIS DATED 26.7.2018 OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
NEW DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY IN
SURVEY NO.357.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.BT2-
17012/2017 DATED 9.3.2018 OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
10.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, VADANAPILLY ACKNOWLEDGING
LUXURY TAX PAID BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
21.1.2021 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF FORM 6 DATED 9.1.2021
SUBMITTED TO 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 27.1.2021 OF
VILLAGE OFFICER, VADANAPILLY.
