Kerala High Court
Thomas vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 9 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 12995 OF 2022
PETITIONER
THOMAS
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. VARGHESE, MULACKAL HOUSE, MATTOM, ALOOR
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 602.
BY ADVS.
C.A.CHACKO
C.M.CHARISMA
RESPONDENT
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THRISSUR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL
STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN 680 003.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SURYA BINOY B SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 12995 of 2022 :2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2022
The petitioner holds 19.20 Ares (47 cents) of property in
Kandanassery Village in Kunnamkulam Taluk. The petitioner
is before this Court seeking to direct the respondent to
consider Ext.P2 application submitted under Section 27A of
the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,
2008, in a time bound manner.
2. The petitioner holds 19.20 Ares of property in Survey
No.527/2 of Kandanassery Village in Kunnamkulam Taluk.
According to the petitioner, the property is a dry land. The
property is not included in Data Bank as paddy land/wetland.
Though the petitioner has 5.67 Ares of property in Survey
No.522/6, the said property is not included in Data Bank as
paddy land.
3. The petitioner intends to construct a residential
house in 19.20 Ares of property and therefore, submitted
Ext.P2 application invoking the provisions of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The
petitioner submitted requisite fee also. The application has
not been considered so far.
4. The petitioner filed I.A No.1 of 2022 producing
Ext.P3 Form-7 application submitted on 03.06.2022. The
said Ext.P3 application was submitted in view of the fact that
the petitioner had mistakenly submitted Ext.P2 in Form-7 for
19.20 Ares of property only. The petitioner, in fact, wants to
change the nature of land in respect of 24.87 Ares.
5. The Government Pleader entered appearance and
resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader
controverted all material allegations made by the petitioner in
the writ petition. It is pointed out that in order to consider
Ext.P3 Form-7 application, the petitioner will have to produce
a sketch in respect of the property indicating the water
conservation measures proposed by the petitioner. This is a
statutory requirement under the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, contends the
Government Pleader.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader representing the
respondent.
7. The petitioner holds 24.87 Ares of property in
Kandanassery Village in Kunnamkulam Taluk. The petitioner
wants to change the nature of the land in Revenue records,
for utilising the land for other purposes. The petitioner has
therefore invoked the provisions of Rule 12(1) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and
submitted Ext.P3 application in Form-7. As the petitioner has
invoked his statutory remedy, the respondent, who is the
competent authority to consider Ext.P3, has to consider the
application, in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ
petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider
Ext.P3 application, if it is received with all supporting
documents and after paying the prescribed fee, if any, and to
dispose of the same within a period of three months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
smm/14.06.2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12995/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED
30.11.2021 ISSUED FROM KANDANISSERY
VILLAGE OFFICE.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 14.03.2022
ALONG WITH RECEIPT FOR REMITTING THE
FEE.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FROM 7 APPLICATION
DATED 03/06/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT
