Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
ISMAYIL – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 20945 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS, SMT.S.K.SREELAKSHMY
For the Respondents: SMT.PREETHA K.K
The court upheld the importance of timely action on statutory applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, emphasizing adherence to prescribed timelines.
Headnote:The case concerns the classification of land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. The petitioner, owner of land, challenged erroneous classification as 'paddy land'. The Court found the petitioner's application pending for consideration without any express opinion on merits and mandated the authorities to act within specified timelines. The court framed the issue of delayed action under statutory obligations and emphasized the importance of expeditious proceedings. The judgment ordered the appropriate authorities to complete the application process within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and classification dispute of agricultural land under relevant act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court mandates timely processing of statutory applications. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.60 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 283/3-13 and 283/3-12 of Nannambra Village, Tiruragadi Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is an unnotified land. The respondents have erroneously classified the land as ‘paddy land’ and included it in the data bank. By Ext. P2 order, the property was excluded from the data bank. To change the classification of the property in the revenue records, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application before the first respondent on 01.05.2025 in Form 6 under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules' in short).But, the application has not been considered till date. Hence, the writ petition.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, especially that Ext.P3 application is pending consideration before the first respondent since 01.05.2025, and the same is statutory in nature, without expressing anything on the merits of the application, I allow the writ petition by ordering as follows:
(i) The fourth respondent is directed to submit his report as provided under Rule 12(4) of the Rules, to the authorised officer, within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
(ii) On receipt of the above report, the first respondent (authorised officer) shall consider and dispose of Ext.P3 application, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of the above report.
