IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 4510 of 2008(J)
1. SARAFUNEESA,S/O. MUHAMMED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
... Respondent
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER
3. THE KARULAI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :04/03/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(c).No.4510 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008
JUDGMENT
It appears to me that the petitioner is voicing a genuine grievance.
She applied for permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer for
conversion of 5 cents of wet land from out of a total extent of 20 cents
belonging to her so that she could construct a residential house. The
application submitted by the petitioner was enquired through the
additional Tahsildar who in turn had facilitated a report from the
Karulai Village Officer. Going by the report-Ext.P5, the property of
the petitioner has been partially reclaimed and 15 coconut trees which
are atleast 20 years old do stand on the property. Village Officer has
recommended that the petitioners application be granted. Under the
impugned order – Ext.P7, the first respondent RDO has taken the view
that on account of the introduction of the Kerala Paddy Field Protection
Bill 2007 in the Assembly and since the terms of that bill, its provisions
become operative from 19th September 2007 it will not be possible for
WPC.No.4510/08 2
the first respondent to entertain the application especially since the
Government has in their letter 72497/07/Revenue dated 17/10/2007
issued such a direction.
2. I heard the submissions of Sri.Babu.S.Nair, counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Ansar, Government Pleader. The
petitioner’s application was submitted on 23/03/2006 much before the
day when Kerala Paddy Field Protection Bill 2007 was placed on the
floor of the Kerala Legislature. According to me, it is not just to reject
the petitioner’s application for conversion of a small portion of her
property for the purpose of putting up a residential building on the
reason of introduction of the Bill before the Assembly. Concededly the
enactment is yet to get the assent of the Governor.
3. I am of the view that on the facts and circumstances which
attend on this case, the first respondent should be directed to take an
early decision on the petitioner’s application relying on Ext.P5 report
submitted by the Village Officer which is based on local inspection and
pursuant to an enquiry with notice to the general public also. The
RDO himself ,it is seen, had inspected the site and found that the land
WPC.No.4510/08 3
is already converted as dry land and the construction of the foundation
of the building has been started. The submission of Sri.Babu.S.Nair is
that in view of the ensuing monsoon, the RDO should be directed to
take an early decision without waiting for the report from the
Agriculture Department.
The writ petition will stand allowed to the following extent:
Ext.P7 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Ext.P8
consequential order issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat are
quashed. The first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.P1
application submitted by the petitioner, acting on the village officer’s
report-Ext.P5 without insisting on any report from the Agriculture
Department and without being influenced by the Kerala Paddy Field
Protection Bill 2007 and the Government letter No.72497/07/Revenue
dated 17/10/2007. Fresh orders as directed above shall be passed by
the first respondent at the earliest and at any rate within two weeks of
receiving a copy of this judgment.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
sv.
WPC.No.4510/08 4