Sunil K.K vs Revenue Divisional Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 2737 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
         FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 4305 OF 2022


PETITIONER:

              SUNIL K.K,
              AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY,
              KUNDOLY HOUSE, TOPAZ 3191,
              SHOBHA CITY, PUZHAKKAL P.O,
              THRISSUR 680 553.

              BY ADV RAVI KRISHNAN



RESPONDENTS:

     1        REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
              THRISSUR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
              AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA 680 003.

     2        TAHSILDAR (LR),
              KUNNAMKULAM, TALUK OFFICE,
              UNNAMED ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 503.

     3        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
              CHOONDAL VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE,
              THRISSUR-KUNNAMKULAM ROAD, CHOONDAL,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 502

     4        LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
              REP. BY ITS CONVENER AND AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
              KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOONDAL, CHOONDAL P.O,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 502

              SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK, GP.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 4305 OF 2022
                                    2




                            T.R. RAVI, J.
             --------------------------------------------
                    W. P. (C). No. 4305 of 2022
              --------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 11th day of March, 2022

                              JUDGMENT

The 1st respondent had issued Ext.P4 order whereby

permission was granted to the petitioner for conversion of 214.38

Ares of land in Sy.Nos.209/1, 7, 10, 210/1, 2, 3, 5 in Choondal

Village, Thalappally Taluk. It can be seen from the order that the

property had been converted several years back and there are

coconuts and mango trees of 20 years of age. Two conditions have

also been laid down in Ext.P4 regarding the flow of water. The

petitioner had filed WPC No.30922/2015 for a direction to correct

the Basic Tax Register on the basis of Ext.P4 order. This Court

noticed that Ext.P4 order has been issued without referring to the

provision of law and directed the petitioner to approach the

Revenue Divisional Officer with an application under Clause 6 of the

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, apparently to set the order right. The

petitioner thereafter approached the Revenue Divisional Officer who

has by Ext.P6 order found that a petition under Clause 6(2) is not WP(C) NO. 4305 OF 2022

maintainable in the light of Section 3A of the Kerala Conservation of

Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The petitioner submits that Section

3A is no longer in force and even otherwise the only provision that

was available at the time of issuance of Ext.P4 was Clause 6 and

nothing else. Since the land had been converted several years back

as can been seen from Ext.P4, there could have been no other

provision under which the petitioner could have filed an application

also. In such circumstances, the petitioner submits that Ext.P6 is

not legally sustainable and fresh orders are required.

2. Since the intention of this Court as can be seen from

Ext.P5 was only to ensure that orders are passed with reference to

the statutory provisions and this Court had specifically directed the

petitioner to move the Revenue Divisional Officer under Clause

6(2), the 1st respondent ought to have issued orders referring to

Clause 6(2). This Court had not set aside Ext.P4. As such there

was no necessity for the Revenue Divisional Officer to enter into a

fresh enquiry into the matter since an enquiry had already been

conducted while issuing Ext.P4.

3. In the above circumstances, I do not think there is any WP(C) NO. 4305 OF 2022

necessity to direct the petitioner to approach the Revenue

Divisional Officer over again for the very same purpose. Interest of

justice will be served if Ext.P4 is directed to be treated as an order

under Clause 6(2).

The writ petition is hence disposed of declaring that Ext.P4

order shall be treated as an order passed under Clause 6(2) of the

Kerala Land Utilization order. There will be a further direction to

the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 application in the light of the

declaration made above and in the light of the judgment reported in

Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma reported in

[2015 (3) KHC 19] and other judgments on the issue. Necessary

orders shall be issued within one month from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE

Pn WP(C) NO. 4305 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4305/2022

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO. 1058/2006 OF MUNDOOR SUB REGISTRY DTD. 20.03.2006.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX PAID BY THE PREDECESSOR OF THE PETITIONER IN THE YEAR 2006.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR DATED 22.10.2008.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2015 IN W.P.C NO. 30922/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.1.2016 OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER- SUB COLLECTOR

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT VS. MARIUMMA AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN KERALA HIGH CASES AS 2015(3) KHC 19.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5.10.2021 FILED IN FORM A UNDER SECTION 6A OF KERALA LAND TAX ACT, 1961.