Ummer vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20669 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20669 Ker
Judgement Date : 5 October, 2021

Kerala High Court

Ummer vs State Of Kerala on 5 October, 2021

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
   TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021/13TH ASWINA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 15764 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

         UMMER, AGED 64 YEARS,
         S/O.LATE SYED MUHAMMED HAJI,
         KOZHIPPURATH HOUSE, NELLIKKARTTIRI P.O.,
         THIRUMITTAKODE, PATTAMBI,
         PALAKKAD, PIN- 679 533.

         BY ADV K.A.MANZOOR ALI


RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
         ITS SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF DEPARTMENT,
         GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

    2    THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
         PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

    3    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM,
         PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101.

    4    THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
         KRISHI BHAVAN,
         THIRUMITTAKKODE, PIN- 679 533.

         SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN, SR.G.P.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.15764/2021

                                2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of October, 2021

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to set aside

Ext.P4 and to declare that the entries relating to the

petitioner's property in Ext.P2 Data Bank is liable to be

deleted, in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioner owns 0.3521 Hectares (35.21

Ares) of land of which 0.2064 Hectares of land is

comprised in Sy.No.71/3, 0.1052 Hectares in Sy.No.73/3

and 0.0405 Hectares in Sy.No.73/4 of Thirumittakkode

Village in Palakkad District. According to the petitioner, the

said property is a garden land having coconut cultivation.

The coconut trees existing there are more than 20 years of

age.

WP(C)No.15764/2021

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

revenue records show that the property of the petitioner as

'nilam'. Ext.P2 Data Bank prepared by the Local Level

Monitoring Committee (LLMC) shows that the said property

is a converted land. If the petitioner wants to use this

property for other purposes, it has become highly

necessary for him to get entries deleted from the Data

Bank. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed an

application in Form 5.

4. The Agricultural Officer gave a report to the

effect that the land is to be retained in Data Bank. On the

basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer alone, the 3 rd

respondent rejected Form 5 application submitted by the

petitioner as per Ext.P4. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4

order.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader WP(C)No.15764/2021

representing the respondents.

6. A perusal of Ext.P4 order would show that the

order has been passed by the 3 rd respondent based on the

report submitted by the Agricultural Officer on 24.09.2020.

Ext.P4 does not disclose any reason whatsoever for the

conclusion that the land is liable to be retained in the Data

Bank. Ext.P5 photographs produced by the petitioner

would show that the land stands already filled up and there

are coconut trees of varying ages. Ext.P5 photographs

relating to the property held by the petitioner would show

that a re-look at Ext.P4 is necessary. The statutory rules

provide for obtaining scientific data from the KSREC.

Therefore it would be only appropriate that a decision is

taken based on scientific data also.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

permitting the petitioner to make an application to obtain a

respondent shall reconsider the application submitted by

the petitioner and take a decision, taking into consideration

the report of by the KSREC also. A decision in this regard

shall be taken within a period of three months from the date

of receipt of the report of the KSREC. To enable the 3 rd

respondent to take a decision afresh, Ext.P4 order is set

aside.

Sd/-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15764/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 26/04/2021 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUMITTAKKODE-1.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PADDY CULTIVATION.