Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
MUHAMMED FAZAL RABEEH – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. evaluation of land suitability must be based on ground realities. (Para 1) |
| 2. court discusses misinterpretation of regulations in prior decisions. (Para 2) |
| 3. ground realities must be integrated into the decision process. (Para 3 , 4) |
J U D G M E N T
With respect to an extent of 25.8 Ares of property in Survey No.160/26-2 of Narukara Village, purchased by the petitioner in the year 2016, which was described as Nilam in the revenue records and was also not included in the Data Bank, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking to change the nature of the unnotified land. By the order at Ext.P2 dated 27.11.2021, the Revenue Divisional Officer having rejected the application, the petitioner preferred an appeal, and the District Collector, pursuant to Ext.P4 order dated 18.03.2023, has also rejected the appeal. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court.
2. Heard Sri.Siddharth Pisharody, the learned counsel representing Sri.Babu S.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L., the learned Govern
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
