IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
SAINABA MUHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners are owners of disputed land. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention over property misclassification. (Para 3) |
| 3. court emphasizes mandatory assessment of land. (Para 4) |
| 4. orders issued without compliance are arbitrary. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are husband and wife. They are the owner in possession of 0.39 Ares and 1.21 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey Nos.82/4 and 82/4-2 respectively in Nedumbassery Village in Aluva Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 and P2 possession certificates. The properties are converted land and are unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the properties as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , and the Rules framed thereunder (‘Act’ and ‘Rules', for brevity). To exclude the properties from the data bank, the petitioners had submitted Exts.P3 and P4 applications in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Exts.P7 and P8 orders, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures as man
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.