Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 63263
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
P E SREEDEVI – Appellant
Versus
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER Advocate -GOVERNMENT PLEADER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 2409/2018
Court upheld the necessity for prompt resolution of applications related to land use under the applicable laws.
Headnote:
Property - Ownership - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act - Sections 1, 2
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claims ownership of a five cents property designated as dry land but recorded as Nilam due to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act. Applications for relief are pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the eighth respondent to consider the pending application for land use according to law, ensuring a decision is made within three months, and establishing further consideration of related applications.
Issues: Whether the respondent authorities should expedite the consideration of the petitioner's applications regarding land use.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely decisions on applications related to land use rights and the importance of following statutory provisions during these processes.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with directions for timely consideration of applications.
JUDGMENT
According to the petitioner, petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of five cents of property comprised in Survey No. 122/2A of Kulashekharamangalam Village, as per Ext.P1 sale deed, dated 25.05.2007. According to the petitioner, even though the property is remaining as a dry land, in the BTR as well as revenue records, the same is shown as Nilam and is also included in the data bank constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P11 application before the eighth respondent, which is pending consideration. In order to seek necessary relief as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 before the third respondent and seeks direction for early consideration of both the applications.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the Panchayath, there will be a direction to the eighth respondent to consider Ext.P11 application, in accordance with law and attain finality, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will also be a direction to the eighth respondent to secure necessary report and satellite images from the KSREC, if needed. If the petitioner is able to secure an enabling order in her favour, Ext.P8 application shall be considered by the third respondent, in accordance with law, and attain finality, at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within three months from the date of production of the order from the eighth respondent. The petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of this writ petition along with appended documents before the appropriate statutory authorities. This writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.
