Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45981
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
SAFIYA – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIOAL OFFICER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 17340/2014
A property not classified as wet land is not subject to prohibitory orders under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act.
Headnote:
Property - Writ Petition - Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 - Section 6 Summary: The court analyzed sections regarding land classifications and permissions under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, ruling that the petitioner can seek necessary permissions due to prior conversion of the land.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, owner of a property not classified as wet land, challenged prohibitory orders related to land usage, arguing prior conversion for other purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that as the property was not currently classified as wet land, the prohibitory orders could not be enforced, allowing the petitioner to seek permission for land use.
Issues: Whether the prohibitory orders were valid given the current classification of the property and the petitioner's request for permission to utilize the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision hinged on the interpretation of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, particularly regarding the classification and utilization permissions for the land.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioner may seek necessary permissions for land utilization.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner of the property in RS No.249/1 in Valavannur village. She has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 an P3 prohibitory orders issued by the
3rd and 2nd respondents respectively.
2. On instructions the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner's property is not classified as nilam or wet land in the Draft Data Bank. It is recorded that the petitioner converted the property five years back. In view of the above, no proceeding can be initiated against the petitioner under the the provisions of Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 . However, it is submitted that the petitioner made a request for permission to utilise the land for other purposes. The petitioner has impleaded the Revenue Divisional Officer, Malappuram, as additional 4th respondent as per I.A. N.16749/2014.
3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner shall approach the additional 4th respondent for permission to utilise the land for other purposes in terms of clause 6 of the Land Utilisation Order. As the petitioner is constructing the residential building, necessary permission shall be granted to the petitioner for utilising the land for other purposes. Permission shall be granted to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of an application under clause
6 of the Land Utilization Order.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
