Raju S/o. Ayyappan Chettiyar v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Office Of Rdo, Collectorate, Ayyanthole P. O. , Thrissur DT.
2021-09-08
ANU SIVARAMAN
body2021
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the Exhibit P8 representation along with the Exhibit P4 application taking into account the direction of this Hon'ble Court in Exhibit P6 judgment limiting to the property to the extent of 23½ cents of land (9.32 ares) instead of 28½ cents comprised in survey no.79/4 of Ollukkara Village. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider, dispose and pass orders on the Exhibits P8 representation along with the Exhibit P4 within a time limit after hearing the petitioner.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner owns 2 items of property having an extent of 9.32 ares in Survey No.79/4 and 3.36 ares in the very same Survey Number of Ollukkara Village in Thrissur Taluk. It is submitted that the total extent of the property comes to 11.59 ares that is 28 ½ cents. The petitioner had submitted an application under Form 6 for the utilization of the land for other purposes, since the land was recorded in the revenue records as paddy land. The application was in respect of the entire extent of property. Ext.P3 is the application which is dated 02.03.2021. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 request before the RDO seeking to change the extent of land by removing the extent of 3.36 ares of land from the application so that his application could be considered without paying the exorbitant fees. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a consideration of Ext.P8 representation and Ext.P3 application. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that there does not appear to be any embargo in the Rules with regard to request made by the petitioner for consideration of Form 6 application with respect to a lesser extent of land.
The petitioner, therefore, seeks a consideration of Ext.P8 representation and Ext.P3 application. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that there does not appear to be any embargo in the Rules with regard to request made by the petitioner for consideration of Form 6 application with respect to a lesser extent of land. However, it is submitted that since the petitioner is the owner of both the items of property and since 3.36 ares out of the total extent of property is now sought to be removed from the application, in case any further request is made with regard to the said 3.36 ares of property in Survey No.79/4 of the Ollukkara Village of Thrissur Taluk, then the application in that regard will have to be accompanied by the fees for the entire extent of 11.59 ares of property, in view of the fact that the property stands in the name of the petitioner and is the part of one plot. It is further submitted that all documents, including survey sketch are also required for a consideration of Ext.P8 application. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an approved survey sketch already accompanies Ext.P8 representation and that Ext.P3 application and Ext.P8 representation are, therefore, liable to be considered together by the respondents. Having considered the contentions advanced, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 representation preferred by the petitioner and on Ext.P3 application in accordance with law. However, the petitioner shall undertake that in case any application is filed in future for the conversion of 3.36 ares of property which is now admittedly a part of the petitioner's property, then that application will be accompanied by fees for the entire extent of 11.59 ares of property which is owned by the petitioner as on today. In case such an undertaking is submitted by the petitioner, the issue shall be appropriately considered by the 1st respondent in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after obtaining all due reports from the Village Officer and after conducting site inspection, if necessary. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.