Maideenkutty Naha vs The District Collector Ernakulam
2023 Latest Caselaw 11708 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 38023 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:

           MAIDEENKUTTY NAHA
           AGED 49 YEARS
           S/O ALIYAR, PUTHIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTILANJI,
           ERAMALLOOR P O, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
           686666
           BY ADVS.
           K.R.PRATHISH
           P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN

RESPONDENT/S:

     1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM
             CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
     2       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO)
             REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM
             DISTRICT, PIN - 686673
     3       THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
             MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL
             STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
     4       THE VILLAGE OFFICER
             KALLOORKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE, KALLOORKKAD,
             MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686668
OTHER PRESENT:

             GP - RIYAL DEVASSY


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   16.11.2023,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C). No.38023 of 2023      :2:



                           VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
         --     -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                       W.P.(C) No.38023 of 2023
         --     -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                Dated this the 16th day of November, 2023

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P9

order, whereby the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner

has been rejected, mainly taking a stand that the property is not

fully filled up and there is water logging in the property and that

there are paddy fields in the nearby locality and further that the

subject property will come within the definition paddy land as per

the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

2. Petitioner is the owner and possession of 6.7 Ares of

property in Sy. No. 369/6-3 of Kalloorkkad Village, Muvattupuzha

Taluk. Admittedly this property is not included in the data bank

published by the Panchayat. The Form-6 application submitted by

the petitioner has been originally rejected as per Ext.P3 order,

against which he has preferred a statutory appeal before the

District Collector, who relying on the KSRSEC report and also

finding that there are arecanut trees of 20 years and the property

is converted much earlier, has allowed the appeal and remitted

back the Form 6 application for reconsideration to the Revenue

Divisional Officer, as per Ext.P4 order. Thereafter, pursuant to the

direction issued by this Court as per Ext.P5, the application was

again considered and rejected stating the very same reason, as per

Ext.P6. Again the order was challenged before the District

Collector and by Ext.P7 order, Ext.P6 order was set aside and

again remitted back for reconsideration. Thereafter the impugned

order has been passed again rejecting the application stating the

very same reason. The petitioner relies on Ext.P8 KSRSEC report,

wherein it is observed that the plot was observed under mixed

vegetation/plantation/trees in the data of year 2008 and the same

landuse practices were continuing in the data of subsequent years

also, ie., 2009, 2015 and 2022. The reason stated in Ext.P9 order

are not reasons available to the 2 nd respondent Revenue Divisional

Officer, for rejecting a Form-6 application.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. This Court has considered an identical issue in George

Varghese v. The District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] wherein

the parameters for consideration of a Form-6 application has been

enumerated, which has not been followed while issuing Ext.P9. In

view of the same, Ext.P9 is set aside with a consequential direction

to the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the

Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with

law, taking into consideration the directions issued by this Court in

George Varghese's case cited (Supra) and a final decision in the

matter shall be taken within an outer limit of one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will be free to

submit argument notes producing copy of the judgment in George

Varghese's case cited (Supra), which shall be duly considered

while reconsidering the matter as directed above.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38023/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.05.2022 FOR THE YEAR 2022-2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 02.08.2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULUM DATED 02.12.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.02.2023 IN WP (C) NO. 3146 OF 2023 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 21.02.2023 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 06.10.2023 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.05.2023 OF THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING & ENVIRONMENT CENTRE Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RDO MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 27.10.2023