Seethathodu Constructions & ... vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6091 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. 15614 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          SEETHATHODU CONSTRUCTIONS & PROPERTIES PVT. LTD
          REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SHAJI K. MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS,
          S/O. K. C. MATHEW, KALLADAYIL HOUSE, KUMARAPERUR
          VADAKKEKARA MURIYIL CHITTAR - SEETHATHODE VILLAGE,
          RANI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 667.

          BY ADVS.
          K.J.MANU RAJ
          K.VINAYA


RESPONDENTS:

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

    2     REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          MUVATTUPUZHA, PATTIMATTOM MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673.

    3     THE TAHSILDAR
          TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683561.

    4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301.

    5     AGRICULTURE OFFICER
          KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHENCRUZ P. O.,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682308.

          SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GP


    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. 15614 OF 2022
                                   2

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022

The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, has

approached this Court seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to

consider Ext.P1 Form 5 application of the petitioner within a

time frame.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner is owning

68.73 Ares of land in Survey Nos.178/1-2, 183/2-3, 183/3,

183/2-2, 178/4-2 and 178/4 Ares of Puthencruz Village in

Kunnathunad Taluk in Ernakulam District. The petitioner

purchased the property as per a registered Sale Deed of the

year 2008. When the petitioner purchased the property, it was

a dry land. The property, however, has been described in the

Land Data Bank as paddy land.

3. Aggrieved by the wrong entry of the land in the

Data Bank, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application

invoking the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner submits that WP(C) NO. 15614 OF 2022

inspite of lapse of considerable time, the 2 nd respondent has

not passed any orders on Ext.P1. The 2 nd respondent is

compellable to take a decision expeditiously.

4. The Government Pleader entered appearance and

resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader pointed

out that in Ext.P2 tax receipt, the extent of property possessed

by the petitioner in Survey No.178/1-2 is shown as 18 Ares

and 20 Square Meters. However, the particulars shown in

Ext.P1 application differ. In other survey numbers also, there

are considerable anomalies.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

respondents.

6. The petitioner owns 68.73 Ares of land in

Puthencruz Village. Ext.P2 would show that the petitioner has

been remitting the land tax in respect of the land. The

petitioner has invoked the provisions of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 in filing WP(C) NO. 15614 OF 2022

Ext.P1. Ext.P1 being a statutory application, the 2 nd

respondent is liable to consider and take a decision thereon

within a reasonable time.

7. As regards the argument of the Government

Pleader that there appears to have some anomalies in the

extent of properties as recorded in Ext.P2 tax receipt and in

Ext.P1 application, this Court is of the view that it is for the 2 nd

respondent to pay attention to such anomalies and take

appropriate decision after seeking explanation from the

petitioner, if necessary.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ

petition is disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent to consider

Ext.P1 From 5 application, if it is complete in all respects and

supported by all requisite documents and pass appropriate

orders thereon, within a period of three months.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO. 15614 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15614/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 27.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 04.05.2020 IS PRODUCED BEFORE THE RDO,

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION TO THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 30.07.2021.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) 12791 OF 2022 DATED 06.04.2022.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL