IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13854 of 2008(Y)
1. C.K. VARGHESE, CHOORAL VETTATHU VEEDU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. R.D.O., CHENGANOOR.
... Respondent
2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE
3. TAHSILDAR, CHENGANOOR.
4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VENMONY.
For Petitioner :SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/12/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.13854 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
According to the petitioner, by Ext.P1 settlement deed of
11.5.1992, among various items of property that were well
settled in his favour, one item is a plot having 18 cents, a portion
of which was already reclaimed. He submitted that in order to
reclaim the remaining 4 cents of the plot, he made Ext.P2
application, which shows that the purpose mentioned was to
construct a residential building.
2. On the application, Exts.P3 and P4 reports were
submitted by the Tahsildar and the Village Officer respectively.
Both these reports were in favour of the Petitioner. However, the
Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext.P5 order not only rejecting
Ext.P2 application, but also ordering that the remaining portion of
18 cents which is already reclaimed should be restored to its old
position.
3. Petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal and that was also
dismissed by Ext.P7 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner. It
is challenging Exts.P5 and P7, this writ petition is filed.
W.P.(C).No. 13854 OF 2008
2
4. The reason mentioned in Exts.P5 and P7 for declining
permission for reclamation of 4 cents of land is that the petitioner
had other garden land available and therefore it was not
necessary for him to reclaim the site in question. Having regard
to this fact and also since this issue is to be now dealt with in
accordance with the provisions of 28 of 2008. I do not think that
it is necessary to up set this findings contained in Exts.P5 and P7
orders.
5. However, I cannot up hold that part of Ext.P5, which
directs the petitioner to restore the remaining portion of 18 cents
of land to its old position. According to the petitioner, even prior
to 1963 the land was already a reclaimed land. Therefore, it is
very doubtful whether the Land Utilisation order has any
applicability to the land in question. Even otherwise the
proceedings originated on Ext.P2 application made by the
petitioner seeking permission for conversion of 4 cents. It is on
that application an adverse order and that too, without putting
the petitioner on notice, was passed. Such an order is clearly
illegal. Therefore, Ext.P5 to the extent, which requires the
petitioner to restore remaining 14 cents of 18 cents plot as paddy
W.P.(C).No. 13854 OF 2008
3
field, is unsustainable and Ext.P7 to the extend Ext.P5 is
confirmed also is unsustainable.
6. This writ petition is therefore disposed of quashing
Exts.P5 and P7 to the extend mentioned above.
7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
should be given liberty to make an application under Act 28/2008.
It is made clear that if such an application is made, the same will
be dealt with in accordance with law.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
dmb