RAVEENDRAN. K.K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: That the petitioners are aggrieved by the undue delay in considering and disposing the Ext.P4, application to correct the nature of land owned by the petitioners as 'dry land in the Basic Tax Register. The properties of the petitioners and nearby lands were seen as 'parambu' from time immemorial. The properties are lying contiguously without any demarcation and laying in the equal ground level with nearby land including the land of 2nd petitioner in which the building numbered by the Grama Panchayath is situated. To make correction in the Basic Tax Register, the petitioners had submit application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation order, 1967 before Revenue Divisional Officer and another application seeking exclusion of the properties from the draft data bank before the Agricultural officer, the convenor of Local Level Monitoring Committee. On apprehended delay in consideration of aforesaid application, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P.(C). No. 9329 of 2018 and this Hon'ble pleased to pass judgment dated 13-04-2018 with direction to time frame disposal of above applications. Meanwhile, the amendment in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act came into force and the petitioner filed fresh application under section 27A of the act in form No.7 by paying prescribed fee. Subsequently, the Inspection of the property, verification of documents and hearing were completed by the 3rd respondent. The 5th respondent village officer submitted the fair value details with sketch of the properties demarcating land for conservation of water. Further clarification sought by the 3rd respondents is also complied satisfactorily by the 5th respondent. But till date, no order is passed by the 3rd respondent The respondents 3 to 6 visited the properties of the petitioners' different occasions. During the pendency of the application of the petitioners, three different Revenue Divisional Officers were occupied the office of 3rd respondent and all of them inspected the properties of the petitioners, apart from the individual inspection from the part of respondent 4, 5 and 6. Even after complying all the conditions and favourable report from respondents 4, 5 and 6, the 3rd respondent is purposefully delaying to pass orders in Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioners. Petitioners are intended to construct a new building in the properties and undue delay in passing order in Ext.P4 application and following delay in sanctioning of the building permit may impose more burdens on the petitioners through escalation of the expenses and cost in the construction of the building in the aforesaid land and they will put them in great loss and much hardship. It is in the light of the above averments and contentions, the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers :

(2.) Heard Sri. Anil Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case it is ordered in the interest of justice that, the 3rd respondent will immediately take for consideration the matters raised in Ext.P4 application dated 28.02.2019, filed by the petitioner in Form No.7, and may ensure that effective inspection is duly conducted by the 5th respondent-Village Officer to ascertain the ground realities of the subject property as on 12.08.2008 and as to whether the subject property was cultivable and suitable for cultivation as on 12.08.2008, and consequently as to the subject property would fulfill the definition of paddy land as per Section 2(12) of the Act as on 12.08.2008 and copy of the inspection report should be given to the petitioner in advance and thereafter the 3rd respondent-RDO will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners through an authorized representative/ counsel, if any, and after having due regard to the contents of the above inspection report, and also having due regard to Ext.P2 proceedings of the LLMC ordering the exclusion of the subject property from the Land Data Bank etc., and then should pass orders on Ext.P4 application, without much delay preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. The above said inspection should be duly completed by the 5th respondent-Village Officer within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While doing so 3rd respondent-RDO will bear in mind that the necessary fee payable by the petitioners in Section 27 A(3) read with Rule 12(9) of the Rules can only be the fair value of the subject property covered by the application filed under Section 27 A(1), and that to the fair value of the subject property as on the date of submission of the said application (Ext.P4), and not the fair value which has been subsequently revised thereto.