Kerala High Court
Abdul Jaleel vs The State Of Kerala on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 29611 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ABDUL JALEEL,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA,
KARUPARACKAL HOUSE, KURUVAMBALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
JAFAR K., S/O. HAMSA ,AGED 38 YEARS,
KARUPARACKAL HOUSE, K.P. KULAMBA,
KURUVAMBALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM 679 338.
BY ADV K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SHANTI
NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 332.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, KURUVAMBALAM, KURUVAMBALAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM 679 338.
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
PULAMANTHOLE REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN , PULAMANTHOLE,
PULAMANTHOLE P.O., MALAPPURAM 679 323.
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN , PULAMANTHOLE, PULAMANTHOLE P.O.,
MALAPPURAM 679 323.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.29611/2021
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.29611 of 2021
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ,
direction or order calling for the records
leading to Exhibit P6 and to quash the same.
ii. Issue a declaration that the lands having an
extent of 08.01 Ares of comprised in Block
No.1, re-survey no. 153/4-2 of Kuruvambalam
village in Perinthalmanna Taluk, owned by the
petitioner, are not paddy lands as defined in
Section 2 (xii) of the 2008 Act for inclusion in
the Data Bank.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
direction or order directing the respondents 3
and 5 to submit a report on the lie and nature
of the applied lands within a time limit as
dictated by this Hon'ble Court.
iv. Issue such other writ, order or direction as
this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to
W.P.(C).No.29611/2021
grant in the facts and circumstances of the
case, for the ends of justice.
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is in ownership of an extent of 08.01
Ares of properties comprised in Block No.1, Re-survey
No.153/4-2 of Kuruvambalam village in Perinthalmanna Taluk.
According to the petitioner, the subject properties were
reclaimed/converted before 2008 and not suitable for paddy
cultivation. It is also the case of the petitioner that except a
small extent owned by the petitioner and his brother, the
surrounding lands are under construction and cultivation aged
at least 15 years. The fact is reported by the Agricultural
Officer is the case of the petitioner. It is also stated in the writ
petition that the 2nd respondent mechanically reiterated the
decision of LLMC that the lands were not converted before
2008. The specific case of the petitioner is that no site
inspection was conducted, no notice is issued to the petitioner
and the KSREC report also is not obtained. Hence this writ
petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
W.P.(C).No.29611/2021
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his
contentions in the writ petition. The learned Government
Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has
not requested for KSREC report. The learned Government
Pleader also submitted that the order is passed after
inspecting the property even though it is not mentioned
specifically in the order. The learned Government Pleader
further submitted that the report of the KSREC is not
mandatory and it is the discretion of the Revenue Divisional
Officer to obtain the KSREC report.
5. This court considered the contentions of the
petitioner and the respondents. A perusal of Ext.P6 will show
that that it is not a speaking order. From Ext.P6 it is not clear
whether the 2nd respondent inspected the property before
passing orders. The petitioner has got a case that the KSREC
report is not necessary in this case. The petitioner is free to
file an application in accordance to law for getting the KSREC
report. For facilitating the 2 nd respondent to pass a fresh
order, Ext.P6 can be set aside.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following
manner:
W.P.(C).No.29611/2021
1. Ext.P6 is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider
the matter, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and also after
inspecting the property. The 2 nd respondent
will also consider the request of the petitioner
for the necessity of KSREC report in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
3. The above exercise should be completed by the
2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
W.P.(C).No.29611/2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29611/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
690/2017 S.R.O. MOORKANAD (KOLATHORR).
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
06.03.2021.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM
5 DATED 16.03.2020.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF
THE DATA BANK DATED NIL.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 27.01.2021.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2021.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS
RELATING TO THE SUBJECT LANDS AND THE
SURROUNDING LANDS.
