Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
Anand Louis - Appellant
Vs.
Haaris Rasheed - Respondent
Con. Case (C) No. 1193 of 2021
Decided on 21-01-2022
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - The court held that if the land is already shown as converted in the data bank, no correction is necessary for considering the application in Form No.6.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application in Form No.6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules for permission to utilize a piece of un-notified land. The respondent argued that the petitioner should have also filed an application in Form No.5 for correction of the data bank. The court held that if the land is already shown as converted in the data bank, no correction is necessary for considering the application in Form No.6. The respondent is directed to process the petitioner's application without insisting on any correction in the data bank.
Finding of the Court:
The court referred to various judgments that have consistently held that if the land is already shown as converted in the data bank, no correction is necessary for considering the application in Form No.6.
Ratio Decidendi: If the land is shown as converted in the data bank, no correction is necessary for considering the application in Form No.6.
Result: The respondent is directed to process the petitioner's application without insisting on any correction in the data bank.
Order
1. The direction in the judgment to the respondent is to pass orders on Ext.P3 application preferred in Form No.6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules for permission to utilise the land referred to therein which is an un-notified land in terms of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, for other purposes. Insofar as the land is shown in the data bank as converted land, the respondent has taken the stand that the petitioner ought to have preferred an application in Form No.5 as well for correction of the data bank and has even obtained an application in Form No.5 from the petitioner for the said purpose and it is due to the delay in processing the said application that the respondent is unable to comply with the direction in the judgment.
2. It has been consistently held by this Court in various judgments that if the land is shown as a converted land as on the date of coming into force of the Act in the data bank, it is unnecessary to make any correction in the data bank for the purpose of considering the application in Form No.6.
3. The respondent is therefore, directed to process Ext.P3 application preferred by the petitioner, without insisting any correction in the data bank, treating the land of the petitioner as an un-notified land.
List the matter after two weeks for reporting compliance.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
