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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24915

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
RAFI V.J., V.J.THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, ADDL.R4:VILLAGE OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 40451 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
For the Respondents: Smt.Preetha.K.K, Sr.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Timely processing of applications under land conservation law is essential to protect property rights.

Headnote:The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 governs the regulations regarding land use. The petitioners own land which they seek to designate as non-paddy for development. The petitioners contend that their applications for this designation were not processed properly. The court directed the Village Officer to submit a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the applications within one month, highlighting the need for timely administrative action.

Table of Content
1. petitioners' grievances over property applications (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. court's directive for report submission (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.24 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.228/2-5 in Re-Sy Block No.1 of Poonithura Village. The 2nd petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.24 Ares of prperty comprised in Survey No.228/2-6 in Re-Sy Block No.1 of Poonithura Village. The grievances of the petitioners are with regard to the non- consideration of Ext.P2, Form-6 application submitted by the 1st petitioner and another application submitted by the 2nd petitioner in Form-6, receipt (No.K8/451007/21) of which is produced as Ext.P5.

2. Both properties were removed from the Data Bank as per orders passed on the applications submitted by the petitioners in Form-5.

4. Limited prayer sought by the petitioners is to direct the respondent concerned, before whom the said application is pending to pass orders thereon within a time frame.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition.

Accordingly, it is ordered that, the additional 4th respondent Village Officer shall forward a report regarding the nature of the property of the petitioners to the 2nd respondent or the authorized officer under Section 2 (xvA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon receipt of the said report, appropriate orders on Ext.P2 and Application.No.K8/451007/21 shall be passed by the 2nd respondent or the authorized officer as referred above within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said report.

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