R. V. Mahadevan vs Agricultural Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 5897 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 17532 OF 2022
PETITIONERS

     1        R. V. MAHADEVAN,
              AGED 56 YEARS
              S/O.R.VENKATARAMAN, VENKITA HOUSE, PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD,
              VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 012.
     2        CHITHRA MAHADEVAN,
              AGED 54 YEARS
              WIFE OF R.V.MAHADEVAN, VENKITA HOUSE,
              PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 012.
              BY ADVS.
              S.VINOD BHAT
              ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
              GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R


RESPONDENTS:

     1        AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
              KRISHI BHAVAN, MARADU, NETTOOR P.O., PIN-682 040.
     2        REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
              OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI,
              PIN-682 001.


              SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.17532 OF 2022
                                   2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of May, 2022

The petitioners are the owners of garden land in Re-

Survey No.132 in Block No.13 of Maradu Village in

Kanayannur Taluk.

2. The petitioners state that the property is included in

Data Bank as 'Nilam'. In fact, the property ceased to be paddy

land long back. The petitioners want to develop the land. In

the circumstances, the petitioners submitted Exts.P2 and P3

applications for removing the land from the Data Bank. The

respondents are not acting thereon. Hence, the petitioners are

before before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out

that the Agricultural Officer has already forwarded Exts.P4 and

P5 reports, which are in favour of the petitioners. The delay in

taking decision on petitioners' applications is causing undue

hardship to the petitioners.

WP(C) NO.17532 OF 2022

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned Government Pleader representing the

respondents.

5. In view of the facts and reasons stated in the writ

petition, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be

disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take appropriate

decision on Exts.P2 and P3, the same being statutory

applications.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2 nd

respondent to take appropriate decision on Exts. P2 and P3

applications submitted by the petitioners, if the same are

received along with all supporting documents and paying the

prescribed fee, if any. A decision shall be taken on Exts.P2

and P3, within a period of four months.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.17532 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17532/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK ENTRY.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 23.11.2021 OF 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF APPLICATION DATED NIL OF 2ND PETITIONER.

Exhibit P4 COPY OF REPORT OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P5 COPY OF REPORT OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF 2ND PETITIONER.