Noorjahan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 10770 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
    THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 27TH ASWINA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 32196 OF 2023
PETITIONER :

          NOORJAHAN,
          AGED 60 YEARS,
          W/O MUHAMMED, MANNARAYIL HOUSE,
          KECHERI P.O., KECHERI, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          PIN - 680 501

          BY ADVS.
          ASOK KUMAR K.P.
          GENTLE C.D.



RESPONDENTS :

    1     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          FIRST FLOOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
          AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA,
          PIN - 680 003

    2     LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
          KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER &
          AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ,
          KOLAZHY KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          PIN - 680 631

    3     THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
          KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLAZHY,
          KOLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          PIN - 680 631



          BY SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 32196 OF 2023
                                  2




                 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                  W.P.(C) No.32196 of 2023
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
            Dated this the 19th day of October, 2023


                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner's application in Form 5 in respect of 4.98 Ares in

Survey No.36/1-5 of Block No.52 of Kolazhy Village, Thrissur Taluk

was shown in the department's website as 'rejected'. Though

petitioner attempted to obtain a copy of the order, the order could

not be downloaded. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash

Ext.P7 information, intimating that petitioner's application under

Form 5 stands rejected.

2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions

submitted that though petitioner's application under Form 5 stands

rejected, the order has not been uploaded since the system did not

permit uploading of such an order. It was also fairly submitted that

the physical copy of the order could not be retrieved as well.

3. This Court is surprised to note that even though the system

provides for an entry showing the rejection of the application, there WP(C) NO. 32196 OF 2023

is no provision for uploading the order. If such modes of uploading

of orders are not available, it is certainly a deficiency in the software

which needs to be rectified immediately. A provision to show the

status of the application without a corresponding window or link to

view and download the order for the applicant does not serve any

purpose. In such instances, atleast the physical copy of the order

must be made available. In the absence of either the digital order

or the physical order, it cannot be assumed that there is in

existence an order itself.

4. Notwithstanding the above, on a perusal of Ext.P7, it is

noticed that reason is mentioned as the basis for rejecting the

application "as LLMC recommended not to exclude from data bank".

Going by the precedents laid down by this Court as well as the

provisions of law, an order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer

pursuant to an application under Form 5 must be a speaking order

after objectively applying its mind, it is evident that such an

application of mind has not taken place.

5. Hence, Ext.P7 order rejecting the application of the

petitioner is perverse and liable to be set aside. Ordered

accordingly.

6. The first respondent shall therefore consider the application WP(C) NO. 32196 OF 2023

filed by the petitioner under Form 5 afresh, as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, bearing in mind the principles of

law laid down in the decisions in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v.

State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591], Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue

Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524] and also that in Aparna Sasi Menon

v. Revenue Divisional Officer Irinjalakuda [2023 (6) KHC 83].

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM WP(C) NO. 32196 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32196/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 632/1996 DATED 25.01.1996 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, THRISSUR

Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLAZHY

Exhibit P- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO. K.DIS. SR.

208/96/D1 DATED 18.06.1996

Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF KOLAZHY VILLAGE

Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND

Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 09.03.2022 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE DOWNLOADED SLIP 31.07.2022

Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN NIYAS V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [2023(2) KLT 411] DATED 22.02.2023