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

2018 Supreme(Ker) 595

SHAJI P.CHALY
Kunhimoideenkutty – Appellant
Versus
Marakkara Grama Panchayat – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :T. Sethumadhavan (Sr. Advocate), K. Mohanakannan, K.N. Abhilash, A.R. Pravitha, R. Bindu (Sasthamangalam), M.P. Prasanth, Jacob E. Simon, Sunil Nair Palakkat, R. Ramadas, K.B. Gangesh, Athira A. Menon, Smitha Chathanarambath, Amal S. Nair, K. Praveen Kumar, P.P. Jacob, M.R. Jayalatha, T.B. Hood, M. Isha, Amal Kasha, M.M. Salim, P.T. Shahul Hameed, R. Sudhish, M. Manju, P.B. Sajith, C.S. Manilal, S. Nidheesh, K. Praveen Kumar, T.P. Pradeep, Nithya Vijayan, P.K. Sathees Kumar, S. Sreedev, Santhosh Mathew, Karthika Maria, Maria Roy, Veena Ravendran, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Arun Thomas, Jennis Stephen, Vijay V. Paul, K. Shibili Naha, C.R. Jayakumar, B.N. Haskar, Domson J. Vattakuzhy, N. Raghuraj, S. Suraja, V.S. Salim, K.S. Haseena, H. Nujumudeen, V.M. Krishnakumar, M. Shaju Purushothaman, K.S. Rajesh, V. Rajendran (Perumbavoor), George Varghese Kizhakkambalam, N. Rajesh, C.M. Mohammed Iquabal, P. Abdul Nishad, Jeena Joseph, V.J. Sumi Liza, G.D. Panicker, V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar, Smitha (Ezhupunna), Dheeraj Krishnan Perot, Eldho Paul, Tessy Jose, C.K. Sreejith, R. Santhosh Babu, Alexander Joseph, R. Rajeev Menon, K.I. Sageer Ibrahim, Latheesh Sebastian, Joy George, Praicy Joseph, Tanya Joy, Vino Jose, Shakthi Prakash, Bobby Thomas, Avaneesh Koyikkara, S. Sreekumar (Kollam), Saijo Hassan, P. Parvathy, Surya P. Shaji, Benoj C. Augustin, V.K. Rafeek, U.M. Hassan, Vishnu Bhuvanendran, V. Beena, Anand B. Menon, Anzil Salim, Manu Sankar, K.B. Arunkumar, S. Rekha Kumari, Ranjith Babu, M.V. Balagopal, Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Parvathy Vijayan, S. Sibha, Benny Antony Parel, Mathews Raju, P.M. Mohammed Salih, Jamsheed Hafiz & T.S. Sreekutty, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ranjith Thampan, I.V. Pramod, Government Pleaders (M.A. Hanilkumar, Paul Abraham & K.J. Manuraj), Sr. Government Pleader (P.M. Manoj), Sareena George & N. Deepa, Adv.

JUDGMENT

The captioned Writ Petitions are materially connected in respect of the issues raised by the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act, 2008 (for brevity, ‘Act, 2008’) and Rules, and the amendments made to thereunder as per the Amendment Act, 2018 vis-a-vis the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment.

2. According to the petitioners, despite the fact that the properties are remaining as ‘garden lands’, it is remaining in the Basic Tax Register as well as in the revenue records as ‘paddy fields’/’Nanjas’. However, in some cases, they are included in the data bank constituted as per the provisions of Act, 2008. Thereupon, applications are filed under the provisions of Act, 2008, for removing the properties from the data bank, and also applications are submitted under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, before the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officers/District Collectors, seeking permission for utilization of the properties for different purposes other than paddy cultivation.

3. Now, as per the amendment Act






























































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