Abdul Vahid vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9849 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 29988 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

             ABDUL VAHID, AGED 40 YEARS
             S/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KAKKUNNATH KURUPPAM HOUSE,
             THEYYALINGAL, NANNAMBRA, TIRURANGADI TALUK,
             MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 320.

             BY ADVS.
             K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
             P.K.MINIMOLE
             A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
             BAPPU GALIB SALAM
             MUHAMMED ASHIQUE
             G.MOTILAL


RESPONDENT :



             THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             TIRUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
             TIRUR-THRIKANDIYOOR RD,
             TIRUR, KERALA, PIN - 676 101.

             SMT.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP




THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.09.2023,     THE   COURT   ON    THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP© 29988/2023




                                                2



                         BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
                    ......................................................
                            W.P.(C).No.29988 of 2023
                     ...................................................
                 Dated this the 13th day of September, 2023


                                     JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of various extent of lands. 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.P4.

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 26.08.2022.

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 WP© 29988/2023

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 Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, the learned counsel for

the petitioner and Smt.Amminikutty, the 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.P4 application in a time bound manner.

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

decide on Ext.P4 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.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/13/09/2023 WP© 29988/2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29988/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF JENMAM SALE DEED NO.2724/1/20 OF SRO, TIRURANGADI IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE NANNAMBRA VILLAGE OFFICE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 21.08.2022 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 6 DATED 26.08.2022 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27.08.2022 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF RS.1000/-

TRUE COPY