P.N.Vijayan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/ ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10555 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
     MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 24TH ASWINA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 31812 OF 2023
PETITIONER :

          P.N.VIJAYAN,
          AGED 65 YEARS,
          S/O. C.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR,
          PUTHEN NADUVAKKATT HOUSE, KOLAZHY P.O.,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 010

          BY ADVS.
          K.B.ARUNKUMAR
          POOJA K.S.



RESPONDENTS :

    1     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ SUB COLLECTOR
          FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD,
          AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 003

    2     THE TAHSILDAR
          THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 020

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          KOLAZHY VILLAGE OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          PIN - 680 581

          BY SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 31812 OF 2023
                                      2

                    BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                      W.P.(C) No.31812 of 2023
                    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                Dated this the 16th day of October, 2023


                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of 4.23 Ares of land in Survey No.231/6-2 of

Block No.52, Kolazhi Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District. Petitioner

alleges that he had filed an application in Form 6 under Rule 12(1) of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short

'the Rules'). Copy of the application submitted by the petitioner is

produced as Ext.P2.

2. According to him, the property is not a paddy land, but it has

been wrongly described as paddy land in the revenue records, which

requires variation. For changing the nature of land in the revenue

records, he filed the application on 15.07.2023. However, it is alleged

that a decision has not been taken on the said application till date.

3. Form 6 application filed by the petitioner is a statutory

application as per Rule 12(1) of the Rules. The competent authority,

therefore, has a legal duty to consider the said application in accordance

with law within a reasonable time, provided it has been submitted along

with all supporting documents and the prescribed fee.

4. Having heard SriK.B.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the WP(C) NO. 31812 OF 2023

petitioner and Smt.K.Amminikutty, learned Senior Government Pleader, I

am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction

to take a decision on Ext.P2 application in a time bound manner.

5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to

decide on Ext.P2 within a period of four months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment. The timeline stipulated above shall be strictly

complied with by the respondent concerned.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

RKM WP(C) NO. 31812 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31812/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION DATED 15.07.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P-3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.07.2023 EVIDENCING THE SUBMISSION OF EXHIBIT P-2 APPLICATION