‘Few officers disgrace entire system’: Kerala High Court flays official for ‘callous’ handling of property application

‘RDO avoided bounden duty’

• It was placed on record that one Sujaya filed an application for including her husband’s property in the data bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
• The RDO concerned rejected the said application in January 2023 by passing an order based on the sole ground that the petitioner’s husband’s property was already included in the data bank.
• The appellate authority concerned set aside the January 2023 order directing the RDO concerned to reconsider the application afresh.
• The RDO concerned allegedly went through the data bank and passed another order on the ground that the petitioner’s husband’s property is included in the data bank.
• Sujaya decided to file a case against the actions of the RDO concerned in 2024.
• The single judge penalised the RDO concerned, observing that when the appellate authority concerned had directed him to reconsider the application, it was his bounden duty to have verified the notified data bank and ascertained whether the applied property is included in the data bank.

‘Disregard of citizens’ rights’

• This case reflects the manner in which some officers act in apparent disregard of the statutory and constitutional rights of the citizens of this nation.
• The insensitivity and lackadaisical attitude of the RDO concerned is precisely the reason for the single judge’s order of imposing costs as an imperative for deterrence.
• The RDO concerned acted “callously” and “without the necessary care” when he informed Sujaya that her application, which he was looking into as per the directions of the statutory appellate authority concerned, had been rejected for the reason that the property was included in the data bank.

• The single judge has not imposed any liability on the RDO concerned, but on the person who occupied that office at the time when such an order pointing to the inclusion of the property of Sujaya’s husband in the data bank was passed, when in reality it was not done.
• This appeal was not necessary to have been filed by the district collector in their official capacity.
• The actions of the RDO concerned are certainly unbecoming of the office he was occupying
• However, instead of requiring the RDO concerned to pay Rs 10,000 as costs from his pocket, the court set aside that part of the order and held that it would be sufficient to record strong disapproval of his conduct.

‘Not final order, but a communication’

• Arguing for the district collector and the RDO concerned, Government Pleader B S Syamanthak argued that the property of Sujaya’s husband had been excluded from the statutory data bank prepared under the provisions of the 2008 Act, but the said order was not a “final one”.
• He emphasised that Sujaya was merely sent a communication informing that her application could not be considered.
• He argued that since the appellate authority’s direction is not an order, but only a communication, the imposition of a fine on the RDO concerned is unfair.

‘Abuse of process’

• On the contrary, Sujaya’s counsel, advocate N M Madhu, argued that this appeal is an abuse of process and not maintainable in the hands of the concerned authority, since the previous direction is solely against the person who held the office of the RDO at the time when the data bank was issued.
• Madhu also advocated that the order of the single judge imposing costs on the RDO concerned was fully justified since the said document is an order repelling the application of his client, finally asking her to make a fresh application.