Thankamma Mathew vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 3886 Ker

WP(C) NO. 22518 OF 2022
                                         1

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
         THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945
                           WP(C) NO. 22518 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

             THANKAMMA MATHEW
             AGED 72 YEARS
             AIKARA HOUSE, MUTHOLY (P.O) MEENACHIL TALUK, PALA KOTTAYAM,
             PIN - 686573
             BY ADVS.
             PRANOY K.KOTTARAM
             GEORGE SEBASTIAN


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
             REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575.

     2       THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF MUTHOLY PANCHAYAT
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
             KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHUVANAL, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686573.

     3       THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
             KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHUVANAL, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686573.

     4       THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PULIYANNOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686573
OTHER PRESENT:

             GP - RIYAL DEVASSY


     THIS   WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
30.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 22518 OF 2022
                                        2


                          VIJU ABRAHAM, J

                      WP(C) No.22518 of 2022
                                   th
              Dated this the 30         day   of    March 2023

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this court challenging

Ext.P2 order, wherein his Form 5 application has been

rejected by the first respondent - RDO. The reasons stated for

rejecting the application is that the petitioner is having other

property and residential house and further that paddy

cultivation is not undertaken in the said property and that the

said property could be retained as a wet land and therefore,

LLMC did not recommend for removing the property from the

data bank. None of the reasons stated in Ext.P2 is valid for

considering an application in Form 5. The prime consideration

is as to whether the nature of the property and whether the

property is suitable for paddy cultivation as on the date of

coming into force of the Act, 2008. The said aspect has not

been considered by the first respondent while rejecting Ext.P2

order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no WP(C) NO. 22518 OF 2022

site inspection or a report of the KSRSEC was obtained before

issuing Ext.P2 order.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

I am inclined to set aside Ext.P2 order with a direction to the

first respondent - RDO to re-consider Form 5 application

submitted by the petitioner dated 09.11.2021, after conducting

a site inspection and also after obtaining a KSRSEC report, if

necessary, at the expenses of the petitioner. A decision shall

be taken in this regard within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will

be free to submit a detailed argument note before the first

respondent, substantiating his contentions.

With the above said directions, the writ petition is

disposed of.

sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

R.AV WP(C) NO. 22518 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22518/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2022 BEARING NUMBER L10-3746/2021 BY 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE DRAFT DATA BANK SHOWING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY