Unnikrishnan vs The District Collector
2024 Latest Caselaw 10438 Ker

Kerala High Court

Unnikrishnan vs The District Collector on 11 April, 2024

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
    THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 10392 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          UNNIKRISHNAN
          AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O. CHANDRAN, MUNDATHINMEL HOUSE,
          POOLANI, MELOOR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680311
          BY ADVS.
          AMJATHA D.A.
          MUHASIN K.M.
          FARHANA K.H.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
          THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
    2     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          IRINJALAKUDA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
          1ST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMMANDA ROAD,
          IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125
    3     THE TAHSILDAR
          CHALAKUDY TALUK OFFICE, THIRD FLOOR,
          MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL COMPLEX, CHALAKUDY,
          THRISSUR, PIN - 680307
    4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          MELOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, MELOOR,
          THRISSUR, PIN - 680311
OTHER PRESENT:

          SMT.DEVI SHRI R, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10392 OF 2024
                           ..2..



                 MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
          =========================
                W.P.(C.) No. 10392 of 2024
          =========================
          Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024



                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order made pursuant

to Ext P2 application, directing the petitioner to make

payment under Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Conservation of

Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Act').

The petitioner claims to be in absolute possession of 7.87

Ares (19.43 Cents) of the property comprised in Survey

No.113/2-19 of Meloor Village of Chalakudy Taluk in

Thrissur District.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that no payment could have been ordered as the extent of

the property involved is less than 25 cents.

3. The direction in Ext P3 cannot be sustained as

the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the

judgment of this Court in Dr. Sajeev A. V. v. Revenue WP(C) NO. 10392 OF 2024 ..3..

Divisional Officer (2023 (5) KHC 245) confirmed by the

division bench in the judgment reported in Revenue

Divisional Officer v. Dr.Sajeev A. V. (2023 (5) KHC

242)

4. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed. There will be a

direction to the second respondent to consider the

application submitted by the petitioner without insisting on

the payment of fee applying the principles laid down by

the judgment stated above, and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law, within three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,

JUDGE LU WP(C) NO. 10392 OF 2024 ..4..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10392/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO. 2648 DATED 10.08.2009 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION DATED 10.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.

                     4335/2023 DATED 08.07.2023




             //    True Copy   //      PA To Judge