Abdul Nazar vs The R.D.O
2024 Latest Caselaw 14632 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 14632 Ker
Judgement Date : 31 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Abdul Nazar vs The R.D.O on 31 May, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
  FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                      WP(C) NO. 24050 OF 2016
PETITIONER:

            ABDUL NAZAR
            S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, KALLIKKAL HOUSE, NIRANAM
            VADAKKUMBAGAM P.O., THIRUVALLA.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
            SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE R.D.O.
            REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,THIRUVALLA - 689 101.
    2       THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAPRA - 689 621.
    3       AGRICULTURAL OFFICER/THE CONVENER OF THE
            LOCALLEVEL MONITORING COMMMITEE, KRISHI BHAVAN,
            NIRANAM, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.
    4       THE SECRETARY
            AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT
            SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
            BY ADV.
            SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP
     THIS     WRIT    PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   31.05.2024,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.24050 of 2016

                                2




                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
         ---------------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) No. 24050 of 2016
     ------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024


                           JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

reliefs:

"i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records relating to Ext P3 and quash the same

ii) declare that all proceedings initiated against the petitioner is illegal as the petitioner's land comprising in Resurvey No: 113/9 of Kadapra Village is not included in the Databank published as per Section 5(4)(i) of The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act in Niranam Grama Panchayath

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order of direction, directing 4 th respondent to dispose off Ext 4 revision petition forthwith.

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ order of direction, directing respondents to maintain status quo with respect to petitioner's land till the disposal of Ext P4 revision petition And

v) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case."[SIC]

2. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order.

Admittedly, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 revision against

Ext.P3 order before the 4th respondent. Counsel for

the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in

Sanija A. v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (4)

KHC 301] and submitted that Ext.P3 order is

unsustainable. When this Writ petition came up for

consideration on 19.07.2016, this Court passed a

status quo order with respect to Ext.P3 order. Counsel

for the petitioner also submitted that, Ext.P3 order is

passed without any statutory backing by the Sub

Collector. I don't want to make any observation about

the same. Since the petitioner already availed the

right of revision as evident by Ext.P4, I think there can

be a direction to the revisional authority to consider

the same. While deciding the matter, the revisional

authority will also consider the dictum laid down by

this Court in Sanija's case (supra).

Therefore, this Writ petition is disposed of in the

following manner:

1. The 4th respondent is directed to consider and

pass appropriate orders in Ext.P4, after giving

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a

period of four months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment. All the contentions

raised by the petitioner in this Writ petition are

left open and while deciding the revision, the

4th respondent will also consider the dictum

laid down by this Court in Sanija's case

(supra).

2. Till final orders are passed in Ext.P4, the

status quo order passed by this Court on

19.07.2016 will continue.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24050/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 01/12/2016 ISSUED FROPM THE NIRANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED IN NIRANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 18/07/2016 P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19/07/2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE