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

2009 Supreme(Ker) 646

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Hajee Abubacker – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:P.R. Venkatesh , Advocate. For the Respondent: I. V. Promod, GP.

Judgment :

The petitioner applied for permission to convert a piece of wet land, under the provisions of the KLU order in 2007. That, with its reminders, was pending consideration on the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, the "Wet land Act", for short. This court directed consideration of the petitioner's request. By the impugned order, the request of the petitioner stands rejected on the ground that Conservation Act has come into force and the petitioner has to seek permission under that Act. This is under challenge.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The Wet land Act came into force on 12.8.2008. Section 3(1) prohibits conversion or reclamation of paddy land, except in accordance with the provisions of that Act, on and from the date of commencement of that Act, Section 2(12) defines paddy land to mean "all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals". Section 9(1) provides for District Level Authorised Committee, to consi

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top