Kerala High Court
Biju John vs The Land Revenue Commissioner on 6 March, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024/16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 16474 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
BIJU JOHN
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE JOHN,
RESIDING AT EDAPPATTUKAVUNGAL,
PO. KOODATHAYI, MAIKKAVU, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673 573.
BY ADVS.
P.A.HARISH
V.V.SURENDRAN
ASWATHI C.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING.
MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE BUILDING, PO. CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 020.
BY
K.M.FAIZAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.16474 of 2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2024
The petitioner's application for Arms Licence
stands rejected as per Ext.P1 order passed by 2 nd
respondent-District Magistrate. The petitioner had filed
statutory appeal against Ext.P1, which was rejected as per
Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent-Land Revenue
Commissioner on 07.01.2023, holding that the appeal is
belated.
2. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is
farmer and in constant threat of wild animal attacks.
Therefore, an Arms Licence is highly essential for the
petitioner. Unless Exts.P1 and P3 are set aside and the
respondents are directed to issue Arms Licence to the
petitioner, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship.
3. Government Pleader entered appearance on
behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition.
The Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P1 order
was passed as early on 21.11.2014. The appeal against
the said order was rejected by the 2 nd respondent-Land
Revenue Commissioner as per Ext.P3 holding that the
appeal is belated. In the circumstances, the petitioner is
guilty of delay and latches. The writ petition is therefore
liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader
representing the respondents.
5. From the pleadings it is evident that Ext.P1
order has been issued by the 2 nd respondent-District
Magistrate on 21.11.2014. The petitioner preferred an
appeal against the same only on 02.04.2022. For that
reason, the 1st respondent-Land Revenue Commissioner
has dismissed the appeal as belated. As there is delay of
about 8 years in filing the appeal, I am of the view that the
decision of the 1st respondent-Land Revenue
Commissioner cannot be found fault with. The petitioner is
challenging Ext.P1 order also. Ext.P1 order has been
passed nearly 10 years ago. The challenge against Ext.P1
at this distance of time cannot be entertained.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is
dismissed. However, this will be without prejudice to the
right of the petitioner to make a fresh application for Arms
Licence.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
AMR
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16474/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 21.11.2014 AND ITS
TYPED COPY.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
APPEAL NUMBERED AS LR/14602/2022-
LR(CA5) DATED 31.03.2022 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 07.01.2023.
