Separate applications are required for distinct parcels of land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners state that they originally had an extent of 36.85 Ares of property in Re-survey No.1/10 of Puliyannoor Village. This property was acquired for the purpose of the construction of Arunapuram Bypass. When the Bypass was constructed as above, the petitioners state that the property got bisected by the Bypass. On account of the afore, the balance extent of 30.55 Ares was lying on two sides of the Highway. On the western side, the total extent available was 25.85 Ares, and on the eastern side, the total extent available was 04.70 Ares.

2. The petitioners state that, though the afore properties were not included in the Data Bank, they were described as ‘Purayidam’. Therefore, seeking change in the nature of the land as above, the petitioners were required to file an appropriate application under the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). However, it is the contention of the petitioners that since the two extents of land referred to earlier, though lying on the two sides of the Bypass, were falling under the same Sub Division, they could only file a composite application.

3. In such circumstances, the petitioners submitted Ext.P6 Form-7 application seeking change in the nature of the property. However, since the system did not accept the Form-6 application filed as above, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate action.

4. I have heard Sri. K.C. Vincent, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

5. In my opinion, though these properties are lying in the same Sub Division, on account of the subsequent events and the construction of the Bypass, the lie and nature of the properties are as separate parcels of land. When that be so, the petitioners need to have filed separate applications under the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008. Furthermore, as regards the property on the western side extending to 25.85 Ares, this Court notices that the properties have been partitioned into three parcels and, even as against those parcels of land, separate applications were required to be filed, and the petitioners also require to be exempted from the requirement for leaving apart 10% for the purpose of water conservancy, since the afore three extents of properties do not exceed the limit prescribed by the statute.

In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand disposed of, permitting the petitioners to file separate applications manually in Form-6 as regards the properties referred to above and directing the competent authority to entertain the same as one filed on the date of Ext.P6 application and dispose of the same with reference to the law as it existed on that date, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

sab HARISANKAR V. MENON

JUDGE