DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Vimal Vincent – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Division Officer/Sub Collector – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The manner of computation of the fee, to be paid by the owner of a property, under the provisions of Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Paddy Land Act” for short) has been drawn into rumination in this writ petition.
2. The specific stipulations of Section 27A of the afore Act will need a quick glance, if one has to fully appreciate the issues impelled in this writ petition, for which purpose, I reproduce it as below:
(1) if any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilize such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, after considering the reports of the Village Officer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and proper on such applications, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.