T S Kalyanaraman vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 9717 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 27730 OF 2022
PETITIONER

            T S KALYANARAMAN
            AGED 74 YEARS
            S/O T.R. SEETHARAMA IYER,
            B1/619,
            PUSHPAGIRI,
            KALYAN EXTENSION,
            POONKUNNAM,
            THRISSUR.680 002.

            BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN

RESPONDENTS

    1       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
            OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
            THRISSUR-680 003.

    2       THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
            KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHUR P.O.
             THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 014.

    3       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
            MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, MARATHAKKARA P.O.,
            THRISSUR. 680 306.

            SRI.JIBU T S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   26.08.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) No. 27730 of 2022        2
]


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022

The petitioner, who is owner of 2 Hectares 86 Ares and

8 square metres of land in Marathakkara Village of Thrissur

Taluk in Thrissur District, has filed this writ petition seeking to

direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3

application within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner states that he is owner of 2 Hectares

86 Ares and 8 square metres of land situated in Survey

Nos.50/25, 50/26, 50/27, 50/31 and 50/37 of Marathakkara

Village, Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District. The land is a garden

land. It is not cultivated with paddy. It is not fit for paddy

cultivation either. However, the land is included in the Data

Bank and is described as paddy land in Revenue records also.

3. The petitioner wants to use the land for other

purposes. Hence, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application in

Form-5, invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

] Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The application was filed on

05.04.2021. The application is not disposed of so far. Unless

the application is considered expeditiously, the petitioner will be

put to untold hardship and loss, contends the petitioner.

4. The Government Pleader representing the

respondents resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader

controverted all material allegations made by the petitioner, in

the writ petition. The Government Pleader, however, submitted

that since the petitioner has invoked a statutory remedy under

the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

Wetland Act, 2008, the application submitted by the petitioner

can be considered by the competent authority in accordance

with law, provided the application is received, is complete in all

respects and is supported by all necessary documents.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

respondents.

]

6. The petitioner is owner of 2 Hectares, 86 Ares and

8 square metres of land situated in Survey Nos.50/25, 50/26,

50/27, 50/31 and 50/37 of Marathakkara Village, Thrissur Taluk

in Thrissur District. The land is included in the Data Bank of

paddy land and wetland prepared under Section 5(4)(i) of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

According to the petitioner, the land owned by him is neither

paddy land nor wetland. The land is not suitable for paddy

cultivation. The petitioner wants to use the land for other

purposes and hence he has filed an application in Form-5

seeking to remove the land from Data Bank.

7. The Form-5 application has been filed by the

petitioner invoking his statutory right under Rule 4(d) of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

The application being a statutory application, the competent

authority has a legal duty to consider the application in

accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

] The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing

the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 Form-5 application

submitted by the petitioner if the same is received, supported by

all requisite documents and paying prescribed fee, if any, and to

pass orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of

three months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/ 30.08.2022

]

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27730/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2195 OF 2012 OF S.R.O. KUTTANELLUR DATED 31-05- 2012, Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13-01-2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPLICATION IN FORM NO.5 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 05-04-2021.