The court ruled that processing of application must consider the original application date, rejecting excessive demands contrary to prior judgments.

J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri.L.Ram Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner instituted an application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, as early as on 12.09.2018. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, the afore application was directed to be treated as one filed under the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). On the basis of the directions issued by this Court, originally an order at Ext.P7 was passed, instructing the petitioner to file an appropriate application under of the Act. The petitioner thereafter filed Form-7 application. The application presented is not seen disposed of. By the order at Ext.P13 dated 14.02.2023, the petitioner was directed to satisfy an amount of Rs.12,57,300/- as a condition for allowing the application under of the Act. The contention of the petitioner is to the effect that the application ought to have considered with reference to the date of her original application at Ext.P1. In my opinion, the stand taken by the petitioner requires to be accepted, since it is not in dispute that the judgment at Ext.P4 also directed the application at Ext.P1 to be treated as one filed under of the Act. When that be so, merely for the reason that a Form-7 application was filed by the petitioner in the year 2023, she is not to be directed to satisfy an exorbitant amount as is now demanded through the order at Ext.P13.

3. This Court also notices the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Shaji N.T. [2025 (7) KHC 1], wherein it has been found that in cases of the like nature, the provisions of Section 27A of the Act itself is not applicable. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that a building is existing in the property in question, and therefore, in my opinion, the principles laid down in the afore judgment would also be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand also.

Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P13. There will be direction to the respondent to process the application filed by the petitioner with reference to the date of the original application (12.09.2018) and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say that while considering the application as above, the lie and nature of the petitioner’s property requires to be considered by the respondent.

Sd/-