Kerala High Court Imposes Cost On Revenue Official For Withholding Instructions From Advocate General's Office, Not Complying With Judicial Order
The Kerala High Court has imposed of fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for the authority's failure to issue appropriate orders even after the lapse of a year, on an application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, as had been directed by the Court earlier. The petitioner in this case was aggrieved that his land being converted land, was not included in...
The Kerala High Court has imposed of fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for the authority's failure to issue appropriate orders even after the lapse of a year, on an application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, as had been directed by the Court earlier.
The petitioner in this case was aggrieved that his land being converted land, was not included in the draft data bank created under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter, 'Act, 2008'), but was classified as Nilam in the village records and basic tax register. The petitioner had accordingly submitted an application before the RDO seeking permission to use the land for purposes other than paddy cultivation, and for construction of a residential building, which was however not considered.
Although the High Court had previously issued an Order directing the RDO to consider the petitioner's applicaation, the latter averred that the authority had 'adamantly' refused to do so, and insisted the petitioner to file a fresh application as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, took note of the Senior Government Pleader K. Amminikutty's submission that despite repeated requests, no instructions were forthcoming from the office of the RDO, due to which th counsel was unable to answer any of the queries of the Court.
Terming such a situation as not just surprising, but also 'alarming', the Court observed,
"This Court is compelled to observe that, the conduct of the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer in failing to respond to the requests from the office of the Advocate General to provide instructions is a conduct that undermines the system of administration of justice. When this Court had, in Ext.P6 judgment, specifically directed the 1st respondent to issue orders on Ext.P4 application in a time bound manner, he was bound to comply with the said direction. Even after the lapse of more than twelve months, the litigant is compelled to knock at the doors of this Court, alleging that order as directed was not issued. That, by itself, is an unfortunate situation. Subsequently, when the litigant approaches this Court again complaining of failure to pass orders as directed, the officer withholds instructions from the office of the Advocate General is not only unfortunate but also a dangerous situation indeed. Both the aforenoted situations reflect a callous indifference to the rule of law. If such instances repeat, it will lead to chaos and confusion".
Justice Thomas emphasized that stern action is warranted in situations where instructions sought for from the office of the Advocate General are not responded to by the officer.
The Court was thus of the considered view that the failure to provide instructions to the Office of the Advocate General as well as the failure to pass the order on the basis of the earlier direction of the Court warranted imposition of costs, and proceeded to direct the RDO to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, within seven days from the date of the Order. It was added that the cost shall be the personal liability of the RDO, and was not to be recovered from the Government exchequer.
The Court further issued strict directions to the RDO to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application within 14 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
Advocates P.M. Ziraj, and Irfan Ziraj appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
Case Title: Sathar K.A. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 21832 of 2023