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

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 62764

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
JOMON LUKE – Appellant
Versus
THE VILLAGE OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C)/26872/2022



Advocates:
M.G.KARTHIKEYAN, NIREESH MATHEW

The competent authority has a statutory obligation to consider applications regarding land classification under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act within a reasonable time frame.

Headnote:

Paddy Land - Ownership - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Sections 5(4)(i), Rules 4(d) - The court directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s application for land use change, emphasizing statutory duty and timely resolution.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner owns 16.99 Ares of garden land not suitable for paddy cultivation, included in the Data Bank as ‘Nilam’. He filed an application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, which was not addressed by the authority.

Issues: Whether the competent authority is bound to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application for land use change under the applicable statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the legal duty of the competent authority to act on applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, ensuring timely decisions on statutory requests.

Final Decision: The court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the application within three months.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2022 The petitioner, who is owner of 16.99 Ares of land in Block No.2 of Uzhavoor Village of Meenachil Taluk in Kottayam District, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 3rd 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 he is owner of 16.99 Ares of land situated in Survey Nos.427/8 and 427/9 in Block No.2 of Uzhavoor Village, Meenachil Taluk in Kottayam 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 ‘Nilam’ 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 09.05.2022. 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 is owner of 16.99 Ares of land situated in Survey Nos.427/8 and 427/9 in Block No.2 of Uzhavoor Village, Meenachil Taluk in Kottayam 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 him 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 he 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 his 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

3rd 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.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

hmh

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26872/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE VELIYANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH EVIDENCING THE INCLUSION IN THE DATA BANK, DATED 03.02.2021.

Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED

04.03.2022.

Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN FORM-5 DATED 09.05.2022.

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 Back to top