Krishnakumar Allengode vs Revenue Divisional Officer, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3839 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                       &
        THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
     THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945
                             WA NO. 678 OF 2023
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2509/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:

              KRISHNAKUMAR ALLENGODE
              AGED 54 YEARS
              DIRECTOR MANAPAD DEVELOPERS PVT LTD S/O A.C GOPALA
              PANICKER, KUMILL HOUSE, PAZHANJI P.O, VELLIYAMKOODE, PIN -
              679579

              BY ADV K.SUJAI SATHIAN



RESPONDENTS:

     1        REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR
              REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR TIRUR-THRIKANDIYOOR RD,
              TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676101

     2        VILLAGE OFFICER
              NANNAMUKKU VILLAGE OFFICE CHANGARAMKULAM -
              CHELAKKADAV ROAD NANNAMUKKU KERALA, PIN - 679575

     3        AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
              AGRICULTURE OFFICE, NANNAMUKKU, CHANGARAMKULAM,
              MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679575


         THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.03.2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA NO. 678 OF 2023
                                -2-




                           JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has come

up with this appeal, not being satisfied with the direction given in

the matter. The petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional

Officer (RDO) with Form 6 application. He sought a direction before

the learned Single Judge consideration of Form 6 application in a

time-bound manner. The said application was produced as Ext.P5.

2. Government Pleader points out that the total extent of

the land exceeds 20.23 Ares, and therefore, the Form 7 application

alone is maintainable. Noting that the total extent of the land

owned by the appellant is 24 Ares and 89 Sq. Mtrs., the Learned

Single Judge, ordered that the appellant is free to withdraw the

Form 6 application and file a fresh application under Form 7. This

is how the appellant appeared before this Court.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the WA NO. 678 OF 2023

appellant, it is open for the landholder to constrain his land for

consideration by reducing the total extent of the land available to

him. According to the learned counsel, only 20 Ares and 2 Sq. Mtrs.

alone be sought to be regularised by filing Form 6 application.

Having adverted to the facts and circumstances, we are of the

view that let the RDO considers the application in Form 6 in

accordance with the law. It is for the RDO to decide whether such

an application is maintainable or not. The RDO shall consider the

application in Form 6 within a period of three months.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE JS