AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling for the records leading upto Exhibits P6 and quashing Exhibits P4 and P6.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders compelling the respondents to correct the classification of the property of the petitioner as Purayidom/dry land instead of "Paddy Field" or "Nilam"in the Data Bank and as sought for by the petitioner in Exhibit P3.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders restraining the respondents from further proceeding against the petitioner in respect of the land of the petitioner under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and the Rules made thereunder.
iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the 3rd respondent to exclude the land of the petitioner from the Land Data Bank and since the data bank has already been finalised directing him to issue corrigendum notification showing the exclusion of the land of the petitioner from the data bank and publish the said corrigendum notification in the Kerala Gazette within a time to be specified by this Honourable Court.
v. To grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(SIC)
Petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Revenue Divisional officer, Muvattupuzha. It is an order passed in a Form-5 application as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and even without inspecting the property. The counsel also submitted that the findings in Ext.P6 are not correct. The counsel also relied on the decisions of this Court in Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram [2021 (6) KHC 316] and Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and Others [2021 (1) KHC 540].
Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. This Court perused Ext.P6 order. It is not a speaking order. Moreover, there is nothing in Ext.P6 to show that it is an order passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after inspecting the property of the petitioner. The principles laid down by this Court in Jessy Abraham’s case (supra) and Joy K.K.’s case (supra) are also not considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore this Court is of the view that Ext.P6 can be set aside and the Revenue Divisional Officer can be directed to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
Ext.P6 is set aside.
The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also after inspecting the property with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
While deciding the matter, the 1st respondent will consider the dictum laid down by this Court in Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram [2021 (6) KHC 316] and Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and Others [2021 (1) KHC 540].