Kerala High Court
Arakkal Muhammadali vs The District Collector ... on 8 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 34178 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
ARAKKAL MUHAMMADALI
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED, ARAKKAL HOUSE,
VALIYATTU ROAD, CHEMMAD,
TIRURANGADI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306.
BY ADVS.
K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
BAPPU GALIB SALAM
G.MOTILAL
P.K.MINIMOLE
MUHAMMED ASHIQUE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TIRUR
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
TIRUR-THRIKANDIYOOR ROAD,
TIRUR, PIN - 676 101.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TIRURANGADI VILLAGE,
VILLAGE OFFICE, TIRURANGADI, PIN - 676 306.
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
TIRURANGADI KRISHI BHAVAN,
TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 306.
SR.GP.K.AMMINIKUTTY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) 34178/2023
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
......................................................
W.P.(C).No.34178 of 2023
...................................................
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the owner and in possession of an extent of 2.02
Ares of property in Survey No.166/3-3 of Tirurangadi Village,
Tirurangadi Taluk, Malappuram District.
2. Since the aforesaid property was shown in the Basic Tax
Register [for short, BTR] as a paddy land; but was not included
in the data bank, it is treated by law as an unnotified land.
Seeking to remove the entries in the BTR, petitioner filed an
application in Form 6. However, by the order dated
29.01.2022 the RDO rejected the application under Section 27A
of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,
2008 (for short, 'the Act'), which was challenged before this
Court in W.P.(C)No.22292/2022. By judgment dated 20.07.2022,
this Court set aside the aforementioned order and directed a
fresh decision to be taken.
WP(C) 34178/2023
3. Subsequently, by order dated 28.03.2023 the RDO rejected the
application under Section 27A of the Act. The appeal filed
before the District Collector was also dismissed by order dated
12.07.2023. This writ petition is filed challenging the
aforementioned two orders refusing to correct the entries in the
revenue records.
4. I have heard Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, the learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as Smt.K.Amminikutty, learned Senior
Government Pleader.
5. A perusal of the impugned orders reveal that, petitioner's
property is not included in the data bank. Of course, the
appellate authority observed that there is ambiguity regarding
the entry in the data bank. Obviously, an ambiguity in the
entry indicates that the property has not been included in the
data bank, as otherwise, the authorities would have been able
to identify unambiguously that the property is included in the
data bank.
6. In this context, it is appropriate to mention that District
Collector has, in Ext.P6 order, observed that the subject
WP(C) 34178/2023
property has a concrete structure on it and that the Agricultural
Officer, had reported that since an existing building is under
construction in the property is no longer suitable for paddy
cultivation.
7. If a property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and a
concrete structure is already in existence on the said property
or is under construction, no purpose would be achieved by
refusing the application for change of entries in the revenue
records.
8. Section 27A stipulates that if the owner of an unnotified land
desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for
other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer
for permission in such manner as may be prescribed and the
said officer can, after considering the report of the Village
Officer concerned, pass such orders as it deems fit and proper,
ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to
the neighburing paddy lands, if any. The aforesaid power is
conferred upon the RDO to allay the difficulties of the public,
whose properties are unnotified lands but is shown as paddy
WP(C) 34178/2023
land in the BTR. Factors to be borne in mind while
considering the application under Form 5 and those to be
reckoned while considering the application under Form 6 are
different.
9. On a reading of the impugned orders, it is evident that, both
the RDO as well as the District Collector have gone on a
wrong tangent in reckoning the parameters for considering the
application under Form 5 instead of those for Form 6.
Therefore, both the impugned orders are perverse. Ext.P5 and
Ext.P6 orders are, hence, set aside. The 2 nd respondent is
directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner, bearing
in mind the above observations and pass appropriate orders, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 60
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment
The writ petition is allowed.
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/10/11/2023
WP(C) 34178/2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34178/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF FORM 6 APPLICATION DATED
30.01.2020
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE
VILLAGE OFFICER ALONG WITH THE MAHSAR
AND PROFORMA DATED 21.12.2020
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS NO.
RDOTIR/1046/20/F2 DATED 29.01.2022
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.07.2022
IN W.P.(C) 22292/2022
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
RDOTIR/1046/2020/F2 DATED 28.03.2023
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS
NUMBER DCMPM/4977/2023-B6 DATED
12.07.2023
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
TEMPORARY BUILDING WHERE THE PETITIONER
IS CURRENTLY RUNNING THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE
IN HIS OWN LAND.
TRUE COPY
