Rose Simon vs the District Collector,

Rose Simon vs The District Collector,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 01, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1399647

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1399647
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Viju Abraham
Decided On: Nov 01, 2023
Case Number: WP(C)/36334/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rose Simon

Respondent

The District Collector,

Excerpt

.....relying on ext p7 wp(c) no. 36334 of 2022 :3: series of photographs to show that the property of the petitioner as well as the neighbouring properties have already been converted.3. heard the learned government pleader also.4. a perusal of ext p6 order would show that the order hasbeen issued solely relying on the report of the agricultural officer and that there is no independent consideration by the 2 nd respondent especially as to whether the nature and lie of the land as on the date of coming into force of the act 2008. a perusal of ext p6 would also reveal that no report from the ksrsec was obatained nor any site inspection was conducted and it is solely relying on the report of the agricultural officer that the application has been rejected. petitioner would submit that the said decision evidenced by ext p6 is in violation of the directions issued by this court in muraleedharan nair r. v. revenue divisional officer [2023 (4) klt 6217] as well as aparna sasi menon v. revenue divisional officer [2023(5) klt 432] and also the judgments in joy v. revenue divisonalofficer/sub collector [2021(1) klt 433] and the decision in arthasasthra ventures (india) llp v. state of kerala [2022 (4) klt online 1222]. in view of the same ext p6 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider ext p5 application in the light of the declaration of law in the judgments cited above and take a fresh decision in the matter within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this wp(c) no. 36334 of 2022 :4: judgment. petitioner will be free to submit her notes of argument which shall be duly considered by the 2 nd respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above. it is made clear that if the ksrsec report is required for the consideration of the application, necessary fee shall be paid by the petitioner, if it is not already received. with the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. sd/- viju abraham.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 36334 OF 2022 PETITIONER: ROSE SIMON AGED 51 YEARS W/O.SIMON, ARIMBOOR, CHEEROTHA HOUSE, KARAYAKKAD, VADAKKENCHERRY.P.O, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678683. BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001. 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001. 3 PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001. 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKENCHERRY-I VILLAGE, VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678683. 5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE KRISHI OFFICER, VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678683. 6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VADAKKENCHERRY.P.O, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678683. REP.BY ITS CONVENER. BY G.P., SRI. SYAMANTHAK B.S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 36334 of 2022 :2:
VIJU ABRAHAM , J.
=========================== WP(C) No. 36334 of 2022 ============================ Dated this the 1st day of November, 2023

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext P6 order

whereby the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. Petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession and

enjoyment of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.59/39 (59) in Palakkad District having an extent of 0.0627 Ha. Petitioner submits that the property is lying as barren land without any cultivation for the last several years and the neighbouring properties were also converted and residential buildings have been constructed. Petitioner also obtained a building permit in the year 2012 for the construction of a residential building as per Ext P3 and he has subsequently completed the construction also. Petitioner has a specific case that the property has been converted prior to the coming into force of Act, 2008. But the property has been wrongly included in the data bank. Thereupon petitioner preferred Ext P5 application before the 2 nd respondent in Form 5 to remove the property from the data bank, which has now been rejected by Ext P6 and it is aggrieved by the said order that the present writ petition has been filed. Petitioner relying on Ext P7 WP(C) No. 36334 of 2022 :3: series of photographs to show that the property of the petitioner as well as the neighbouring properties have already been converted.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. A perusal of Ext P6 order would show that the order has

been issued solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer and that there is no independent consideration by the 2 nd respondent especially as to whether the nature and lie of the land as on the date of coming into force of the Act 2008. A perusal of Ext P6 would also reveal that no report from the KSRSEC was obatained nor any site inspection was conducted and it is solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer that the application has been rejected. Petitioner would submit that the said decision evidenced by Ext P6 is in violation of the directions issued by this Court In Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 6217] as well as Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023

(5) KLT 432] and also the judgments in Joy v. Revenue Divisonal

Officer/Sub Collector [2021(1) KLT 433] and the decision in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (4) KLT online 1222]. In view of the same Ext P6 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext P5 application in the light of the declaration of law in the judgments cited above and take a fresh decision in the matter within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this WP(C) No. 36334 of 2022 :4: judgment. Petitioner will be free to submit her notes of argument which shall be duly considered by the 2 nd respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above. It is made clear that if the KSRSEC report is required for the consideration of the application, necessary fee shall be paid by the petitioner, if it is not already received. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sbk/- WP(C) No. 36334 of 2022 :5: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36334/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 21.10.2021. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 26.10.2021. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT || NO.A4/BR/5084/12 DATED 25.06.2012. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12 03.02.2021 ISSUED FROM THE VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3 11.11.2021 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE ORDER - 1 NO.RDOPKD/4428/2022- J5 DATED 10.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Rose Simon vs The District Collector, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Viju Abraham