Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Shakthikumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/sub Collector And Ors

Shakthikumar v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/sub Collector And Ors

(High Court Of Kerala)

WP(C) NO. 22042 OF 2022 | 07-07-2022

1. The petitioner, who is owner of 4.30 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.40/11 and 4.85 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.40/10 of Chavara Village, Karunagappally Taluk in Kollam District, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P3 and P3(a) applications and to pass orders thereon, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner is owner of 4.30 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.40/11 and 4.85 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.40/10 of Chavara Village, Karunagappally Taluk in Kollam District. The land is garden land. It is not cultivated with paddy. It is not fit for paddy cultivation either. However, the land is described as paddy land in Revenue records.

3. The petitioner wants to use the land for other purposes. Hence, the petitioner filed Exts.P3 and P3(a) applications in Form-6 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, invoking the provisions of Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The applications were filed on 13.05.2022. The applications have not been considered so far. Unless the applications are considered expeditiously, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship and loss, contends the petitioner.

4. The Government Pleader representing the respondents resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all material allegations made by the petitioner, in the writ petition. The Government Pleader, however, submitted that since the petitioner has invoked a statutory remedy under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, the applications submitted by the petitioner can be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, provided the applications are received, are complete in all respects and are supported by all necessary documents.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

6. The property of the petitioner is said to be a dry land, but it has been described as paddy land, in Revenue records. Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 provides for making applications for changing the nature of land in Revenue records. The petitioner has invoked Rule 12(1) of the Rules, 2008 by filing applications in Form-6. The applications being statutory applications, the Competent Authority is bound to consider the applications and pass orders thereon within a reasonable time.

7. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P3(a) Form-6 applications, if the same are received supported by all requisite documents and paying prescribed fee, if any, and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of three months.

Advocate List
  • T.P.PRADEEP MINIKUMARY M.V. P.K.SATHEES KUMAR R.K.PRASANTH

  • SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GP

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. NAGARESH
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/KerHC/2022/4654
Head Note

— Constitution of India — Art.226 — Relief — Statutory remedy — Petitioner seeking relief under statutory rules — Applications being statutory applications, Competent Authority bound to consider applications and pass orders thereon within reasonable time — Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, R.12(1)