Kerala High Court
C.J.Thomas vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 23 February, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
C.J.THOMAS
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH, CHENGINIMATTAM HOUSE, CHALAKUDY.P.O,
THRISSUR., PIN - 680 307.
BY ADVS.
V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
P.R.REENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJAKAKDUA. THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680 307.
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
CHALAKUDY REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHALAKUDY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680 307.
BY ADV.
GP SMT. DEVISHREE , GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18076 OF 2023 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 33.53
cents of land (13.57 Ares) of land in Sy.Nos.451/8,
452/8, 453/3, and 452/1 of East Chalakkudy village,
Ernakulam District.
2. The property of the petitioner was described
as 'Nilam' in the revenue records and included as
'Nilam' in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P6
application before the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thrissur under Clause 6A of the Kerala Land Utilization
Order, 1967 (for short, 'the KLU order'). Since Ext.P6
application was not considered, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17855 of
2016 and this court, by Ext.P1 judgment dated
24.11.2017, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thrissur the 3rd respondent therein to consider the
application within a period of one month with notice to
the petitioner and calling for report from the
Agricultural Officer and in the light of the judgment in
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015
(2) KLT 516. In the meantime, on an application made
in Form No.5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the Act, 2008'
the property of the petitioner was removed from the
Data Bank and the same was gazetted as per Ext.P4.
3. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of the
Revenue Divisional Officer was bifurcated with respect
to Thrissur and Irinjalakkuda divisions and the
jurisdictional area in respect of the petitioner's property
now vests with the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Irinjalakkuda.
4. By Ext.P2 letter, the petitioner was informed
that, the file relating to Ext.P6 has been transferred to
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, the 1 st
respondent herein. While so, the 1 st respondent issued
Ext.P5 communication to the petitioner directing him to
file an application under Section 27 A of the Act, 2008
for changing the nature of the land. The petitioner
challenges Ext.P5 contending that, when there is
already a direction in Ext.P1 judgment to consider
Ext.P6 application filed under Clause 6(2) of the KLU
order, the 1st respondent cannot insist the petitioner to
submit an application under Section 27A of the Act,
2008.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 st
respondent wherein it is stated that, Ext.P6 application
was not available in the office of the 1 st respondent and
therefore, the petitioner was asked to file a fresh
application under Section 27A of the Act, 2008.
6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and
along with the same, he has produced a copy of Ext.P6
application. According to the petitioner, the 1 st
respondent cannot insist for filing an application under
Section 27A of the Act, 2008 since there is already a
direction by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment to consider
Ext.P6 application under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order.
The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in
Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) v. Revenue Divisional
Officer, Fortkochi and Others [2020 (4) KHC 764],
wherein it is held that, when an application under
Clause 6(2) of the KLU order is filed before the cut off
date of 30.12.2017; ie., before the introduction of
Section 27A of the Act, 2008 the said application has to
be considered only in accordance with Clause 6(2) of
the KLU order and an application under Section 27A
cannot be insisted.
7. Since the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6
application before the date of introduction of Section
27A of the Act, 2008, in the light of the directions of
this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, the 1 st respondent has to
consider the same in accordance with the provisions of
the KLU order. The 1st respondent cannot insist for an
application under Section 27A. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is
set aside and there will be a direction to the 1 st
respondent to consider Ext.P6 application of the
petitioner under Clause 6(2) of the KLU order in the
light of the directions of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment,
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SRJ
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18076/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C).NO.17855/2016 DATED 24.11.2017.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.DD:2620/2017
WRONGLY DATED AS 23.07.2015.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED
28.09.2020 OF THE LOCAL LEVEL
MONITORING COMMITTEE.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.02.2021
BY WHICH THE LAND DATA BANK OF
CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.6.2020 OF
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
IRINJALAKUDA.
Exhibit P6 True copy of the application filed by
the petitioner before the Revenue
Divisional Officer wrongly dated as
12.06.2016.
