IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 24140 of 2008(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- KUNDANI HAJIRA, W/O. KIZHAKKEPEEDIAKKAL HAMSA, THRIPPRANGODE AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S) ----------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (L0 DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA SMT.LAILA SUNIL (ADV.COMMR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24140/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1777/01 OF SRO TIRUR DT 23.6.2001. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.811/2000 OF SRO, TIRUR DT 20.3.2000. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT 24.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT 24.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE THRIPPRANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH DT 3.3.2004. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.18/2005 ISSUED BY THE THRIPPRANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH DT 27.6.2005. EXT.P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.19/2005 ISSUED BY THE THRIPPRANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH DT 26.7.2005. EXT.P7: THE TRUE COPY OF the OFFER LETTER SENT BY HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD. DT 20.12.2007. EXT.P8: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT 8.5.2008. EXT.P9: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 18.6.2008. EXT.P10: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DT 26.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. COMMISSION REPORT-ANNEXURES SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF AUTHORISATION LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER MARKED AS ANNEXURE 1. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF PROOF RECEIPT NO.17692 ISSUED BY GRAMA PANCHAYAT MARKED AS ANNEXURE A2. WPC NO.24140/08 -2- ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF LOCATIONSKETCH NO.1 MARKED AS ANNEXURE A3. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF LOCATION SKETCH NO.2 MARKED AS ANNEXURE A4. ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS ANNEXURE A5. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 24140 OF 2008 (W) ==================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of 44 cents of land in resurvey No.86/1 and 86/3B of Thripprangode Village. Ext.P7 is the letter of intent that was issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited offering the petitioner its retail outlet dealership at Alathiyur in Malappuram District. Petitioner wanted to have the retail dealership located in the land mentioned above. However, in the revenue records, the land was shown as wet land and therefore, she made an application to the 2nd respondent requesting for his no objection to convert the same in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. 2. It would appear that pursuant to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent inspected the land and submitted Ext.P8 report. Ext.P8 indicates the presence of coconut trees, the age of which varies from 25 to 45 years, a 30 year old well, 8 year old service station, 7 year old auto workshop and a 7 year old building in the land in question. However, the report itself shows that the land still continued to be shown as wet land in the revenue records for the reason that since 1928, no resurvey has been conducted in the area. WPC 24140/08 :2 : 3. Despite all this, for the only reason that the land was described as wet land in the revenue records, District Collector rejected the petitioner's application. Petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the District Collector and the 1st respondent called for a report from the 2nd respondent. Ext.P9 is the report submitted by the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P9 also, the contents of Ext.P8 report of the Tahsildar are reiterated by the District Collector and its correctness has been expressly confirmed. Even inspite of it, by Ext.P10, for the only reason that the land is shown as wet land in the revenue records, petitioner's appeal was turned down. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 4. Taking note of the factual materials as disclosed in Exts.P8 and P9 reports of the Tahsildar and the District collector, in order to reconfirm the same, this Court by order dated 17th of December, 2008 appointed an Advocate Commissioner for ascertaining and reporting the actual state of affairs as it is obtaining at the site. In pursuance to the said order, the Advocate Commissioner visited the site and submitted report dated 5/1/2009 along with a sketch which shows that the land is a fully developed garden land with several structures put up there. 5. In the light of the factual position as above, I am of the view WPC 24140/08 :3 : that the authorities should not have been guided only by the entires in the revenue records, dating back to 1928 and decided the application of the petitioner. 6. Since factually the land is a fully developed garden land with the improvements mentioned above therein, I am of the view that the rejection of the petitioner's application by the District Collector and Ext.P10 order by the 1st respondent deserves to be interfered and I do so. 7. Accordingly, quashing Ext.P10, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to issue the NOC to the petitioner in order to enable her to start a retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in RS NO.86/1 and 86/3B of Thripprangode Village in Tirur Taluk. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp