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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, P.M.MANOJ
State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary, Department Of Revenue – Appellant
Versus
Falcon Infrastructures Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director N.A. Muhammedkutty, S/o. Ayamu Haji – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Government Pleader, Shri. C.E. Unnikrishnan SPL. G.P to A.G
Other Present : V.M. Krishnakumar, Renjith Rajappan.

Judgement Key Points

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, cannot be applied to lands that are already granted an exemption under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, provided that the land is used in accordance with the conditions of the exemption. The court emphasized the importance of harmoniously interpreting both statutes, concluding that the exemption under the Land Reforms Act, which allows for commercial use, negates the applicability of the 2008 Act to such exempted lands as long as the land is used within the scope of the exemption. The judgment underscores that statutory provisions must be read in a manner that allows both to operate together without nullifying the rights obtained under the exemption, especially when the land's use aligns with the purpose for which the exemption was granted.


JUDGMENT :

(A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.)

As all these three writ appeals involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

2. WA No. 1691 of 2023 arises from the judgment dated 09.08.2023 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.16781 of 2023. WA No.1441 of 2025 arises from the order dated 19.11.2024 of another learned Single Judge in RP No.356 of 2024 whereby he dismissed the review petition preferred against the judgment dated 31.01.2024 in WP(C) No.20159 of 2023, from which WA No.633 of 2025 arises.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for a disposal of these writ appeals are as follows:

The writ petitioner in the writ petitions aforementioned is stated to be in ownership and possession of 24.5 Acres of land abutting the Container Road at Kalamassery. The said parcel of land was purchased by him in several lots during the period from 2003 to 2011 under cover of 83 documents. The petitioner had purchased the lands with a view to construct and operate a Container Freight Station on the said land. Towards that end, there was also some construction that was completed in the year 2007.

4. It would appear that, out of th

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