Smitha Biju vs Revenue Divisional Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 7814 Ker

WP(C) NO. 17142 OF 2022            1



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
       TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
                          WP(C) NO. 17142 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
     1    SMITHA BIJU,
          AGED 41 YEARS
          W/O. BIJU ANTONY, KAKKERIYIL HOUSE, P.O. KOCHI,
          MUNDAMVELI DESAM, PALLURUTHY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

      2        BIJU BERNARD,
               AGED 53 YEARS
               S/O. GEORGE, MUTTUNGAL HOUSE, MOOLANKUZHY MURI,
               MUNDAMVELI P.O, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               P.G.SURESH
               ASWATHY KRISHNAN


RESPONDENT/S:

      1        REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
               KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 001.

      2        TAHSILDAR,
               KOCHI TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN
               682 001.

      3        THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
               REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS CONVENER, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM
               DISTRICT, PIN 682 001.

               SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17142 OF 2022              2




                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  --------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C) No.17142 of 2022
                     --------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 28th day of June, 2022


                                JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directions directing the 1st respondent to allow Ext P7 (Form

9) application submitted by the petitioners in the light of the back documents submitted by the petitioners or direct the 1 st respondent to reconsider the same immediately. ii. Pass such any other order, direction or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience." [SIC]

2. The writ petition has been filed to reconsider Ext.P7

application submitted by the petitioners as per Form-9 of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for

short "the Rules"). According to the petitioners, they submitted all

documents to prove that the property has been filled prior to

1967. It is the definite case of the petitioners that without perusing

the documents and without any application of mind,

the 1st respondent rejected the Form-9 application submitted by

the petitioners and passed Ext.P10 order. Aggrieved by the

same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Pleader.

4. The short point raised by the petitioners is that

Ext.P10 is not a speaking order. The counsel takes me through

Rule 12(13) of the Rules, in which it is clearly stated the steps

to be taken by the authority before passing orders in a Form-9

application. I think there is some force in the argument. I

perused Ext.P10 order. Ext.P10 is not a speaking order. Even

though several documents are produced by the petitioners, the

same are not properly considered by the authority. Therefore,

Ext.P10 can be set aside and the matter can be remitted back

to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. All the contentions of

the petitioners in the writ petition are left open. The petitioners

are free to file an additional statement along with the

documents they are going to rely. The 1 st respondent will

consider all those documents and thereafter, pass appropriate

orders in Form-9 application.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following

manner :

1) Ext.P10 order is set aside.

2) The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter

after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

3) The petitioners are free to file additional statement with

additional supporting documents before the 1 st

respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent will consider

those documents also while passing final orders.

SD/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17142/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.

196/2012 OF KOCHI SRO DATED 12.01.2012.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 13.06.2016.

Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF THE MORTGAGE DEED NO.

1358/1117 (MALAYALAM ERA) EXECUTED IN THE YEAR 1941.

Exhibit P4 THE RELEASE DEED EXECUTED IN THE YEAR 1946 BY ONE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS.

Exhibit P5 THE RELEASE DEED NO. 2459/64 EXECUTED IN THE YEAR 1964.

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 22.01.2021.

Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 9 APPLICATION FILED UNDER RULE 12 (13) OF KERALA PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES 2008 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT 02.12.2020.

Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.012.2021.

Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALLOWING THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 14.01.2022.

Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE EXHIBIT P7 APPLICATION DATED 14.01.2022.