Kerala High Court
Kunhimoideen Kutty vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 September, 2023
WP(C) NO. 29379 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 17TH BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29379 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
1 KUNHIMOIDEEN KUTTY
AGED 78 YEARS
S/O. ABDURAHIMAN HAJI VALAKUNDIL HOUSE, P O PADINJATTUMURI
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676506. REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER HIS DAUGHTER VALAKUNDIL RAIHANATH AGED 53 YEARS,
D/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN KUTTY, VALLUVAMBRAM POST, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT - ., PIN - 673642
2 AYISHU
AGED 73 YEARS
W/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN KUTTY, VALAKUNDIL HOUSE, P O
PADINJATTUMURI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676506. REP. BY HER
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HER DAUGHTER VALAKUNDIL RAIHANATH
AGED 53 YEARS, D/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN KUTTY, VALLUVAMBRAM POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 673642
3 HASEENA
AGED 44 YEARS
D/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN KUTTY VALAKUNDIL HOUSE, P O
PADINJATTUMURI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676506. REP. BY HER
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HER SISTER VALAKUNDIL RAIHANATH
AGED 53 YEARS, D/O. KUNHIMOIDEEN KUTTY, VALLUVAMBRAM POST,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 673642
4 AHAMMAD KABEER
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. PALAKKAL SAIDALI PALAKKAL HOUSE, P O VALLUVAMBRAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673642. REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER HIS WIFE VALAKUNDIL RAIHANATH AGED 53 YEARS, D/O.
KUNHIMOIDEEN KUTTY, VALLUVAMBRAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
-, PIN - 673642
BY ADVS.
R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
ATHIRA A.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN - 673020
WP(C) NO. 29379 OF 2023
2
2 THE FEROKE MUNICIPALITY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY P O FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN
- 673631
3 THE SECRETARY,
THE FEROKE MUNICIPALITY P O FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -,
PIN - 673631
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
FEROKE VILLAGE P O FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN -
673631
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHIBHAVAN FEROKE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN - 673631
SMT.DEVISHRI.R.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29379 OF 2023
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
========================
W.P.(C)No.29379 of 2023
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of September 2023
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following
reliefs:
i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or
direction, quashing Ext.P4 communication by the 3rd respondent
dated 24.08.2023.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to accept Ext.P3
plan along with the application for building permit without
insisting for the order for change of category of land from the 1 st
respondent or in the alternative.
Iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5
application in Form 6 within a time frame.
iv) Declare that Rule 27A (6) of the Paddy and Wetland Rules,
restricting the construction up to 40 square meters is illegal and
ultra vires in the absence of a enabling provision in the Act.
v) Issue such other writ, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit to grant.
vi) It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
dispense with the production of translation of vernacular
documents produced in the writ petition.
2. Having regard to the contentions raised, I am of the view that
for the present, relief No.3 alone need be considered and the remaining
WP(C) NO. 29379 OF 2023
reliefs can be left open for consideration later, if the need arises.
3. Petitioners are owners of 14.43 Ares of land at Nallur Desom.
Petitioners allege that 4th petitioner 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 4th petitioner is produced as Ext.P5
4. According to them, 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, 4th petitioner filed the application on 12.07.2023. However, it is
alleged that a decision has not been taken on the said application till
date.
5. Form 6 application filed by the petitioners 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.
6. Having heard Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Smt.Devishri, learned Government Pleader, I am of the
view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to take a
decision on Ext.P5 application in a time bound manner.
7. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to
decide on Ext. P5 within a period of four months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. The timeline stipulated above shall be strictly
WP(C) NO. 29379 OF 2023
complied with by the respondent concerned.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
jm/
WP(C) NO. 29379 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29379/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 7 OF 2015 DATED
31.12.2014 OF SRO FEROKE
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED
11.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. FE2/8613/22/23-24
DATED 24.08.2023 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT
FOR PAYMENT DATED 12.07.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
4TH PETITIONER
