Aboobacker vs Sub Collector

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 22, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1408323

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/1408323
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Viju Abraham
Decided On: Dec 22, 2023
Case Number: WP(C)/39896/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aboobacker

Respondent

Sub Collector

Excerpt

.....to the local level monitoring committee to include the petitioner's property in the data bank.3. heard the learned government pleader also.4. going through ext.p4 order rejecting the form 6application, it can be seen that in spite of the fact that the property has been removed from the data bank, the application has been rejected without any valid reason. this court in george varghese v. the district collector [2023 (7) khc 93] has enumerated the parameters for considering a form-6 application, which has not been followed while issuing ext.p4 order. therefore, ext.p4 order is set aside with a consequential direction to the respondent to reconsider the form 6 application submitted by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with sub-section 2 and 4 of section 27a of the kerala conservation of paddy land and wetland act, 2008 and the declaration of law as stated in george varghese 's case cited (supra) and a final decision shall w.p.(c). no.39896 of 2023 :4: be taken by the respondent, within an outer limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. petitioner will be free to submit his notes of arguments producing relevant documents/judgments(including the judgment in george varghese's case cited (supra) and the respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the contentions in the argument note submitted by the petitioner. the writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- viju abraham judge sm/ w.p.(c). no.39896 of 2023 :5: appendix of wp(c) 39896/2023 petitioner exhibits exhibit p 1 true copy of basic tax receipt no. kl09061808254/2021 dated 26.10.2021 with respect to the property of the petitioner. exhibit p 2 true copies of the photographs (3 nos.) of the property in question. exhibit p 3 true copy of notification no. a1-6947/18dated 12.9.2018 of the nagalassery grama panchayat published in kerala gazette no. 2365 removing the property of the petitioner from the data bank.exhibit p 4 true copy.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 39896 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S: ABOOBACKER AGED 65 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, PALLIKKARAVALAPPIL HOUSE, KOOTTANAD P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - BY ADVS. SANTHEEP ANKARATH ANJALI MENON

RESPONDENT/S: SUB COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101 OTHER PRESENT: GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No.39896 of 2023 :2:

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- W.P.(C) No.39896 of 2023 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2023

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, whereby the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The petitioner is the owner of 11.74 Ares of property in Sy.

No 45/13-A-1 in Nagalassery village, Pattambi taluk, Palakkad. The petitioner's property is situated in a town and the area has become uncultivable decades ago, since all the nearby properties were converted and put to other uses and to substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced Exts.P2 series of photographs. Though the property was initially included in the data bank by mistake, on an application submitted in Form 5 to remove the same, the property has been removed from the data bank as per Ext.P3 Gezette Notification. The petitioner, intending to construct a commercial building, submitted an application in Form 6, which has now been rejected by Ext.P4. A perusal of Ext.P4 would reveal that the finding therein is that majority of the land nearby has already been W.P.(C). No.39896 of 2023 :3: converted and during rainy season, there is every chance for water logging in the property, and therefore, change of nature of land cannot be allowed in respect of the petitioner's property and there was also a direction issued as per Ext.P4 to the Local Level Monitoring Committee to include the petitioner's property in the data bank.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. Going through Ext.P4 order rejecting the Form 6

application, it can be seen that in spite of the fact that the property has been removed from the data bank, the application has been rejected without any valid reason. This Court in George Varghese v. The District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] has enumerated the parameters for considering a Form-6 application, which has not been followed while issuing Ext.P4 order. Therefore, Ext.P4 order is set aside with a consequential direction to the respondent to reconsider the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with sub-Section 2 and 4 of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the declaration of law as stated in George Varghese 's case cited (Supra) and a final decision shall W.P.(C). No.39896 of 2023 :4: be taken by the respondent, within an outer limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will be free to submit his notes of arguments producing relevant documents/judgments(including the judgment in George Varghese's case cited (Supra) and the respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the contentions in the argument note submitted by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/ W.P.(C). No.39896 of 2023 :5: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39896/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P 1 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO. KL09061808254/2021 DATED 26.10.2021 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P 2 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (3 NOS.) OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. EXHIBIT P 3 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO. A1-6947/18

DATED 12.9.2018 OF THE NAGALASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE NO. 2365 REMOVING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATA BANK.

EXHIBIT P 4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 168/2019 DATED 2.4.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P 5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.2.2021 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXHIBIT P 6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13.9.2021 SENT BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P 7 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT OF A PROPERTY LYING ADJACENT TO THE PETITIONER'S LAND.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Aboobacker vs Sub Collector Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Viju Abraham