Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19723
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
KUNHIMOIDU MADATHIL – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C)/42302/2022
N.M.MADHU, C.S.RAJANI
Competent authorities are mandated to consider land reclassification applications promptly under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
Headnote:
Paddy Land - Writ Petition - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 - Rule 12(1) - The court emphasized the obligation of the competent authority to consider applications for land use changes under the statute and mandated a timeframe for responsiveness.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, owning 2.8 Ares of land classified as wetland but not suitable for paddy cultivation, sought to change the land's designation by filing an application under Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, which remained unaddressed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application was valid as per the statutory framework and mandated the competent authority to act on the petitioner's request in a timely manner, reinforcing the obligation of government officials to review such applications.
Issues: Whether the competent authority is obligated to respond to the petitioner's application for changing the designation of the land within a reasonable timeframe.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that Rule 12(1) requires the competent authority to consider applications for changes in land classification and to act upon them expediently, ensuring no undue hardship falls upon applicants.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with directions for timely consideration of the application.
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2022 The petitioner, who is owner of 2.8 Ares of property in Thirunnavaya Village of Tirur Taluk in Malappuram District, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 application and to pass orders thereon, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioner states that he is the owner in possession of 2.8 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.379/9/1 of Thirunnavaya Village of Tirur Taluk in Malappuram District. The land is garden land. It is not cultivated with paddy. It is not fit for paddy cultivation either. However, the land is described as wetland in Revenue records.
3. The petitioner wants to use the land for other purposes. Hence, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 application in Form-6 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, invoking the provisions of Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008. The application was filed on
21.06.2022. The application has not been considered so far. Unless the application is considered expeditiously, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship and loss, contends the petitioner.
4. The Senior 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 Rules , 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. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.
6. The property of the petitioner is said to be a dry land, but it has been described as paddy land, in Revenue records. Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 provides for making applications for changing the nature of land in Revenue records. The petitioner has invoked Rule 12(1) of the Rules, 2008 by filing application in Form-6. It being a statutory application, the Competent Authority is bound to consider the application and pass orders thereon within a reasonable time.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 Form-6 application, 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 two months.
