Kerala High Court
Adv. D. Sarachandra Das vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 9736 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 ADV. D. SARACHANDRA DAS
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O DAMODARAN UNNITHAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEETTIL,
PRAMADOM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK,
KUMBAZHA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689653
2 P.R PRABHA KUMARI
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O ADV. D. SARACHANDRA DAS, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEETTIL,
PRAMADOM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK,
KUMBAZHA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689653
BY ADVS.
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
T.S.SARATH
SAMEER M NAIR
GEETHU KRISHNAN
HARSHA SUSAN SAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF RDO,
ADOOR REVENUE DIVISION, ADOOR P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 523
2 THE TAHASILDAR (LAND REVENUE)
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN,
PATHANAMTHITTA P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645
WP(C) NO. 9736 OF 2022
2
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PIN - 689645
5 THE SECRETARY
PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689645
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RANJITH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.V.K.SUNIL, SC, PATHANAMTHITTA
MUNICIPALITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9736 OF 2022
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 9736 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:
"(1) To call for records leading to Exhibit P8
order and quash the same by issuing a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, in
the interest of justice.
(2) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st
respondent for expeditious reconsideration of
applications of the petitioners which culminated in
Ext.P3 and Ext.P6 at the earliest in terms of CI.6(2)
of KLU Order and in compliance with the direction
contained in Exhibit P7 judgment, within a time
frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
(3) Issue such other orders or directions
which deems necessary for the ends of justice and in
the circumstances of the case."[SIC]
2. This Court as per Ext.P7 judgment directed
the 1st respondent to take up consider and pass orders
WP(C) NO. 9736 OF 2022
on the application preferred by the petitioners in terms
of Kerala Land Utilization Order. The grievance of the
petitioner is that the same is violated and an order is
passed by the RDO flouting the directions in the
judgment passed by this Court.
3. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the
counsel appearing for the Municipality.
4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner
takes me through Ext.P7 judgment passed by this
Court and thereafter Ext.P8 order passed by the 1 st
respondent. It will be better to extract the relevant
portion of Ext.P7 judgment.
"Having considered the contentions advanced
and having heard the parties, in view of the admitted
position that the application initially preferred by the
petitioners was before the amendment to the 2008 Act
with effect from 13.12.2017 and in view of the fact
that orders have already been rendered by the LLMC
and the property stands removed from the data bank,
I am of the opinion that the application preferred by
the petitioners before the RDO under the provisions of
the Kerala Land Utilisation Order requires a
WP(C) NO. 9736 OF 2022
consideration, in accordance with law. In the above
view of the matter, there will be a direction to the
respondents to take up, consider and pass orders on
the applications preferred by the petitioners before the
RDO in terms of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and
after considering all relevant aspects of the matter.
Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly. "
5. Thereafter Ext.P8 order is passed by the 1 st
respondent. The relevant portion of Ext.P8 order is
extracted hereunder:
"ആയതതിനനാൽ അപപേക്ഷകപന്റേയയും ടതിയനാനന്റേ ഭനാരര്യയനടയയും
പപേരതിൽ പേത്തനയുംതതിട്ട വതിപല്ലേജതിൽ , സർപവ്വേ K-56/4A2, K-
58/4C, K-58/1-2 എനന്നീ നമ്പറുകളതിലുള്ള ഭൂമതിയനട തരയും
പുരയതിടനമനന്ന് പചേർത്തു നൽകുവനാൻ പകരള ഭൂവതിനപയനാഗ
ഉത്തരവതിനലെ പകനാസന്ന് 6(2) പ്രകനാരയും വര്യവസ്ഥ ഇല്ലേനാത്തതതിനനാൽ
ടതിയനാനന്റേ ഇതതിപലെക്കുള്ള അപപേക്ഷ നതിരസതിചന്ന് ഉത്തരവനാകുന.
സൂചേന (4) പ്രകനാരയും സമർപതിക്കനപട്ടതിട്ടുള്ള
അപപേക്ഷയതിപന്മേൽ തുടർ നടപേടതികൾ സസന്നീകരതിചന്ന്
തന്നീർപ്പുണനാക്കുനതതിപലെക്കന്ന് പരഖനാമൂലെയും അപപേക്ഷതിക്കുന
സനാഹചേരര്യത്തതിൽ പകരളനാ നനൽവയൽ തണന്നീർത്തട സയുംരക്ഷണ
(പഭതഗതതി) നതിയമയും 2018 നലെ വര്യവസ്ഥകൾക്കു വതിപധേയമനായതി
WP(C) NO. 9736 OF 2022
തന്നീർപ്പുണനാക്കുനതുമനാണന്ന് . ഇപ്രകനാരയും ബഹ. പകരള
ഹഹപക്കനാടതതിയനട WP(C)13862/2021 നമ്പർ പകസതിപന്മേൽ
01.10.2021 ൽ ഉണനായതിട്ടുള്ള വതിധേതി നടപനാക്കതിയതിട്ടുള്ളതുമനാണന്ന് ."
6. I am dissatisfied the way in which the 1 st
respondent passed the order when there is a direction
from this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. If there is any
grievance against Ext.P8, there are remedies available
in law. Without resorting to such remedies, the 1 st
respondent ought not to have passed Ext.P8 order. I
am of the view that Ext.P8 is an order passed in
violation of the direction of this Court in Ext.P7
judgment. I do not want to take any action against the
1st respondent considering the facts and circumstances
of the case. There can be a direction to the 1 st
respondent to reconsider the matter in accordance to
law.
Therefore this writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
i. Ext.P8 is set aside.
WP(C) NO. 9736 OF 2022
ii. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider
the matter based on the application submitted by the
petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
iii. The 1st respondent will obey the directions of
this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, as long as the same is
not varied or modified.
iv. Based on the decision taken by the 1st
respondent, the petitioner is free to submit an
application as per the Kerala Land Tax Act and
appropriate orders will be passed by the competent
authority in accordance to law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
DM JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 9736 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9736/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN
THANDAPER NO.27244 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER IN FAVOUR
OF PETITIONERS 1 & 2 DATED
08.06.2020 .
EXHIBIT P2 THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 15.11.2016
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY VIDE NO.
977/2017/KDIS/B4 DATED 10.03.2017
ISSUED BY THE RDO, ADOOR TO THE
PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 2ND
RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
05.01.2018 ANNEXED WITH THE DECISION
NO.1 DATED 01.03.2017 OF THE LLMC
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM
NOTIFICATION NO.321 DATED 09.02.2018
IN KERALA GAZETTE
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.84/977/2017 DATED 24.04.2017
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT-RDO TO
3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
01.10.2021 IN WP(C) NO.13862/2021 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPIES OF THE ORDER VIDE.
NO. 977/2017/B6 DATED 01.01.2022
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT- RDO
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
01.01.2022 PREFERRED BY THE
WP(C) NO. 9736 OF 2022
PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT-RDO
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
