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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
PRADEEP PALANI – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 19310 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR, SRI.R.K.PRASANTH, SMT.MINIKUMARY M.V., SHRI.JIJO JOSEPH
For the Respondents: Smt.Sylaja S.L.

Petitioner's remedy lies in filing an application under Form 5 regarding property status per applicable statutes.

Headnote:The petitioner filed for benefits under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 due to property acquisition. The Revenue Divisional Officer accepted part claims and rejected others, which prompted the writ petition for judicial review. The court concluded that the petitioner must file an application in Form 5 as a remedy, directing the competent authority to act diligently following prescribed timelines. The original ruling and application route were affirmed for expeditious resolution.

Table of Content
1. property acquisition and application for benefits under conservation act. (Para 1)
2. hearing of the petitioner's claims and proceedings. (Para 2)
3. court permits filing under prescribed form and directs timely processing. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner and his wife are stated to have purchased 4.76 Ares of property in Sy Nos.7/10-16, 7/10-17, 7/9-14 and 7/9-15 of Mavelikkara Village, along with an old residential building. Since the nature of the property was described as paddy land, the petitioner filed an appropriate application seeking the benefits under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . The Revenue Divisional Officer has passed Ext.P6 order. While passing Ext.P6 order, the claim of the petitioner with respect to properties in Sy.Nos.7/9-14 and 7/9-15 having an extent of 1.20 and 1.03 Ares respectively were accepted. The prayer with respect to properties in Sy.Nos.7-10-16 and 7/10-17, having an extent of 1.25 and 1.28 Ares respectively, were rejected. The reason stated for the rejection as above is that those properties are included in the data bank. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P6 that the petitioner approached this Court in the captioned writ petition.

2. Heard Sri. T.P. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

3. In my opinion with respect to the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner as above, to the extent of the two properties, the remedy of the petitioner is to prefer an application in Form 5 under the Rules.

Therefore, this writ petition would stand disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate application in Form 5. If such an application is being filed within a period of four weeks from today, the competent authority under the Statute to consider the same and to pass orders thereon, also taking into account the report from the KSREC, as also principles laid down by this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ekm and Others [ 2020(2) KHC 94 ] and Devanand O.B. v. State of Kerala [ 2023(1) KHC 123 ], as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months thereafter.

Sd/-

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