Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
SILPA PARVATHY – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's application from 2015 is central. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court found denial of application unjust. (Para 3) |
| 3. order requires rdo to reconsider application. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application as early as in 2015 seeking conversion of the nature of the property. The afore application was once rejected by Ext.P5, and by Ext.P6 the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh. On that basis, the Revenue Divisional Officer has now issued the order at Ext.P7 dated 08.11.2022, finding that since the petitioner has not filed an appropriate application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, the request made by the petitioner would not be considered. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P7 issued as above that the petitioner is before this Court.
2. Heard Sri. K. Jayesh Mohankumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Anjana, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent Panchayath, as well as Sri. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.
3. The fact that the petitioner had filed Ext.P1 application as early as in 2015 is not in dispute. The insistence for filing an application under Secti
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
