V.Krishnakumar vs The Agricultural Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 6090 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 17195 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            V.KRISHNAKUMAR,
            AGED 70 YEARS,
            SON OF VAIKUNDAM IYER, 15F, HEERA LIFESTYLE,
            IRUMPANAM P.O., KOCHI-682309.

            BY ADVS.
            S.VINOD BHAT
            ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
            GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R



RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
            KRISHI BHAVAN, MARADU, NETTOOR P.O., PIN 682040.

    2       REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
            OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI.
            PIN 682 001.




            SMT.SURYA BINOY B, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER




     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   01.06.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17195 OF 2022            2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022

The petitioner, who is the owner of 10 Ares of land in Maradu

Village in Kanayannur Taluk, has approached this Court seeking to

direct the respondents to pass final order allowing Ext.P3

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

2 The petitioner states that he is the owner of a garden land

having 10 Ares in Block No.13, Re-survey Nos.132/7-2 and 132/7-2-

2 of Maradu Village in Kanayannur Taluk. The petitioner purchased

the property during 2004-2005. According to the petitioner, though

the property of the petitioner is garden land, it has been erroneously

included in Data Bank treating the land as paddy land.

3. Aggrieved by the inclusion of the land in Data Bank, the

petitioner preferred Ext.P3 application for removal of the land from

Data Bank, invoking the provisions contained in the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The

petitioner pointed out that as per Exts.P4 and P5, the Agricultural

Officer has given a report favourable to the petitioner. In the

circumstances, the 2nd respondent is bound to consider the

application submitted by the petitioner in the light of Exts.P4 and P5

and take a just decision in favour of the petitioner, contended the

petitioner.

4. The learned Government Pleader entered appearance and

contested the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader,

however, submitted that since Ext.P3 is a statutory application, if it

has been received supported by all requisite documents, the same

can be considered by the 2nd respondent, who is the competent

authority, in accordance with law.

5. In view of the fact that the petitioner holds 10 Ares of land

in Maradu Village and has filed Ext.P3 application invoking Rule

4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,

2008, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed

of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 and take a

decision thereon.

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the 2 nd

respondent to consider Ext.P3 application, if it is received supported

by all requisite documents and pass appropriate orders thereon

within a period of four months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE DSV/02.06.2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17195/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 COPY OF LAND REVENUE RECEIPT NO.

KL07021405760/2022 DATED 25-04-2022.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK ENTRY.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 23-09-2021 OF PETITIONER.

Exhibit P4 COPY OF REPORT OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.

Exhibit P5 COPY OF LETTER DATED 21-12-2021 OF 1ST RESPONDENT SENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:    NIL