The court affirmed that statutory applications must be considered by the relevant authorities within a reasonable timeframe as mandated by law.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of September, 2022 The petitioner along with her daughter is the owner of

1.02 Acres of land in Pazhayakunnummel Village of Chirayinkeezhu Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner states that she along with her daughter is the owner of 1.02 Acres of land situated in Re-survey No.57/4-2-1 of Pazhayakunnummel Village, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District. The land is a garden land. It is not cultivated with paddy. It is not fit for paddy cultivation either. However, the land is included in the Data Bank and is described as paddy land in Revenue records also.

3. The petitioner wants to use the land for other purposes. Hence, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application in Form-5, invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The application was filed on 08.06.2022. The application is not disposed of so far. Unless the application is considered expeditiously, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship and loss, contends the petitioner.

4. The Government Pleader representing the respondents resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all material allegations made by the petitioner, in the writ petition. The Government Pleader, however, submitted that since the petitioner has invoked a statutory remedy under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , the application submitted by the petitioner can be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, provided the application is received, is complete in all respects and is supported by all necessary documents.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

6. The petitioner along with her daughter is the owner of 1.02 Acres of land situated in Re-survey No.57/4-2-1 of Pazhayakunnummel Village, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District. The land is included in the Data Bank of paddy land and wetland prepared under Section 5 (4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . According to the petitioner, the land owned by her is neither paddy land nor wetland. The land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The petitioner wants to use the land for other purposes and hence she has filed an application in Form-5 seeking to remove the land from Data Bank.

7. The Form-5 application has been filed by the petitioner invoking her statutory right under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

The application being a statutory application, the competent authority has a legal duty to consider the application in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner if the same is received, supported by all requisite documents and paying prescribed fee, if any, and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of three months. While considering Ext.P3 Form-5 application, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall advert to Ext.P2 judgment of this Court also.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE bpr Contd.....(6)

The words “along with her daughter” occurring in paragraphs

1, 2 & 6 of the judgment are deleted and the words “1.02 Acres” appearing in paragraphs 1, 2 and 6 of the judgment will stand substituted by the words “2.57 Ares” as per order dated 20/10/2022 in I.A.No.1/2022 in W.P.(C) No.29464/2022(G).