SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
MARIYAM RASHEED – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 24014 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.A.VINOD
For the Respondents: SMT. SYLAJA S.L.

Procedural lapses in land classification require reconsideration after obtaining expert reports.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the rejection of applications seeking to change the nature of agricultural land and to remove it from revenue records. The court found procedural lapses in the impugned orders and directed reconsideration of applications after obtaining necessary reports. The judgment emphasized the importance of obtaining expert opinions in administrative decisions affecting land classifications.

Result: The writ petition stands disposed of by setting aside Ext.P7 order dated 6.7.2022.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim on land ownership. (Para 1)
2. counsel's arguments presented. (Para 2)
3. review of procedural validity. (Para 3)
4. court's directive for reconsideration. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the owner in absolute possession and enjoyment of 53.97 ares of property in Survey Nos. 60/1A3-8, 60/1B-3, 60/1B-4, 60/1B-5, 60/2-4, and 60/3- 8 of Puthenvelikkara Village, Paravur Taluk. The property, though a garden land, was mentioned as Nilam in the revenue records as well as in the data bank. The petitioner filed applications in Form 5 and Form 7 seeking to change the nature of the land before the 2nd respondent and also seeking to remove the property from the data bank, respectively. By Ext.P7, the Form-5 application is allowed partially with respect to the properties in Survey Nos. 60/2-4 and 60/3-8 having an extent of 9.24 ares and 8.09 ares, respectively. The application in Form-7 filed was also rejected. It is seeking to challenge the aforesaid that the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Sri. V.A. Vinod, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

3. A perusal of the impugned order at Ext.P7 would show that the Form-7 application has been rejected solely on the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer. The Form-5 application is also only partially allowed, without obtaining the report of the KSREC.

4. Insofar as the petitioner has a case that the properties are converted land prior to 2008, in my opinion, the report of the KSREC ought to have been obtained before consideration of the Form-5 and Form-7 applications. Insofar as that is not done, the impugned orders are required to be set aside.

Therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of by setting aside Ext.P7 order dated 6.7.2022. There will be a direction to the RDO or the authorized officer to reconsider the Form-5 and Form-7 applications after obtaining the report of the KSREC, for which the petitioner is to remit the fee. The RDO would also be entitled to carry out a physical verification of the property, if found necessary. Fresh orders as above shall be issued within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top