Kerala High Court
Satheesh L vs Revenu Divisional Officer on 25 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 27415 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SATHEESH L
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KRISHNA HOUSE, SANTHINAGAR,
MANALODI, NILAMBUR P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679329
BY ADV BEN TOM
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENU DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PERINTHALMANNA, RDO OFFICE, SHORNUR-PERINTHALMANNA RD,
SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA, KERALA, PIN - 679322
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676605
3 TAHSILDAR
NILAMBUR, NILAMBURTALUK OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-NILAMBUR-
GUDALLUR ROAD, NILAMBUR, KERALA, PIN - 679329
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
NILAMBUR, NILAMBUR VILLAGE OFFICE, MANALODY, NILAMBUR,
KERALA, PIN - 679329
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
CONVENOR, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE AGRICULTURE
OFFICE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679329
6 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
1ST FLOOR, VIKASBHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE
CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VISHNU S CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL,SC, KSREC
SMT.SURYA BINOY SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.27415 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022
The petitioner, who is owner of 9.30 Ares of land in Re-
Survey No.186/2-2 of Nilambur Village of Nilambur Taluk in
Malappuram District, has approached this Court aggrieved by
Ext.P2 order.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner's land is not
a paddy land or wetland. However, the land is described as
'Nilam' in Revenue records. The petitioner therefore submitted
an application for changing the nature of the land in Revenue
records invoking the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, in Form-6. The
application has been rejected as per Ext.P2 order.
3. The petitioner would state that Ext.P2 order is
illegal and unsustainable. The Revenue Divisional Officer did
not rely on the scientific methods for ascertaining the nature of
the land, contends the petitioner.
WP(C) NO.27415 OF 2022
4. Government Pleader entered appearance and
resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader pointed
out that the petitioner has a statutory appellate remedy
against Ext.P2 order and from Ext.P5 Challan, it appears that
the petitioner has already invoked the appellate remedy. In
the circumstances, it will be only proper that the petitioner be
relegated to the appellate authority for pursuing his remedies.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader representing the
respondents.
6. In view of the fact that the petitioner has invoked
his appellate remedy against Ext.P2 order, the writ petition
can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to
consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal, if the
said appeal is received, supported by all requisite documents.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the
2nd respondent-District Collector to consider the appeal
submitted by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P5 Challan, if
WP(C) NO.27415 OF 2022
the appeal is complete and supported by all requisite
documents and to take a decision on the appeal, within a
period of three months.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
WP(C) NO.27415 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27415/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 23.06.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.05.2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED DECISION
2020 (2) KHC 94
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED DECISION
2014(1) KHC 685
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE APPEAL
FILED ON 20.05.2022
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
02.08.2022
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL
