Abdu Rahiman N.V v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/16TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 19026 of 2015 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :
----------------------------
1. ABDU RAHIMAN N.V., AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.NOTTANVEEDAN MUHAMMED, KANNANPALLIYALI HOUSE, AREACODEAMSAM, AREACODEDESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. KALLANKADAVANMUHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.ABDU RAHIMANMUSLIAR, SHAMIYA HOUSE, VILAYIL AMSOM, PARAPPOOR DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3. NOTTANVEEDANHABEEB, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O NOTTANVEEDAN BEERAN, THOTTIMAML HOUSE, AREACODE AMSOM, AREACODE DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4. KOLLATHODI FATHIMA, AGED 73 YEARS, D/O.KOLLATHODI ABOOBACKER, SAFAMANSIL, AREACODE AMSOM, DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
5. SAMEEL PANTHACKALAKATH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER PANTHACKALAKATH, THOTTIMMAL HOUSE, AREACODE AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
6. KOLLATHODI ABDU RAHIMAN, AGED 68 YEARS, KOLLATHODI ABOOBACKER, VELUTHATHODUVIL HOUSE, AREACODE AMSOM, DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA SRI.SAJU RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------------
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-673 121.
2. THE R.D.O (SUB COLLECTOR), PERINTHALMANNA-673 121.
3. ADDITIONAL THAHASILDAR, ERANAD MANJERI-673 121.
4. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM-673 121.
2/-
-2WP(C).NO.19026/2015
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AREACODE, ARECODE.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 121.
6. AREACODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, AREACODE.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 639.
*ADDL.R7 IMPLEADED *ADDL.R7: SRI.M.P.ABDUL NAZAR,S/O.ABU, PULIKKAL HOUSE, MOORKANADU, OORNGATTIRI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R7 VIDE ORDER DATED 31/07/2015 IN IA.NO.11126/2015.
R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
ADDL.R7 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 19026 of 2015 (C) ------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 14.08.2014 P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.24894/2013 DATED 03.06.2014 P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.26746/2014 DATED 15.10.2014 P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.08.2014 P5 REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT (VILLAGE OFFICER)BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.10.2014 P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT P7 REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.12.2014 P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INVOKING CLAUSE 6 OF KLUO 1967 P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.01.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS` P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.32221 OF 2010 DATED 02.06.2011.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------- R2(A) COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21/05/2015 OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 19026 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 07th day of August, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P8 is an order passed under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. The order has been passed obviously on the premise that there is no provision under the KLU Order to regularise conversion effected on a paddy land before 2008, ie, before the introduction of Kerala Cultivation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . However, the said order would go against the declaration of law in Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector [2015 (3) KLT 182]. . The application filed by the petitioner for correction of BTR was also declined by Ext.P11. However, that cannot be interfered with since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that there can be no rectification of BTR made in RDO v. Jalaja Dileep [2015(2) KHC 109(SC)] . Since this Court has in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra) laid down the procedure by which an application under clause (6) of the KLU Order has to be considered. It is only appropriate that the same be considered
WPC.No.19026/2015 : 2 :
afresh. Ext.P8 is hence set aside. The respondent who had been opposing the recoveyance has also been made a party. The petitioner, the additional respondent as also the Panchayat shall appear before the RDO on 18.08.2015. The office of the RDO shall intimate the date of hearing personally to the parties appearing there and also issue notice by post if any had not appeared. The applications shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge