Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24735

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, BASANT BALAJI, JJ
THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101 – Appellant
Versus
BOBAN THOMAS, S/O M T THOMAS, MANNIL HOUSE, THOTTABHAGOM P O., KAVIYOOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689541 – Respondent
WA NO. 802 OF 2026 | WA NO. 804 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. S. RANJITH
For the Respondents: SRI. T.P PRADEEP

The court upheld the previous directions for application consideration, dismissing the appeal based on timing arguments.

Headnote:The appellants challenge the judgments of the learned Single Judge on the basis that the applications under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order were submitted past a critical date. The court found that the earlier judgment providing for the direction for consideration of these applications stood unchallenged. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge’s decision.

Table of Content
1. assessment of application timelines under land use regulations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. final decision to dismiss the appeals. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

We are considering these Appeals together because the constitutive issues raised are analogous; while the writ petitioners are stated to be brothers.

2. The appellants challenge the judgments of the learned Single Judge on the singular ground that the applications preferred by the respondents/writ petitioners in the two Writ Petitions, under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order), was done after 31.12.2017, which is the date on which Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008, was brought into force.

3. Sri.S.Ranjith – learned Senior Government Pleader, argued that, when the applications were preferred much after 31.12.2017, the learned Single Judge was in error in having directed the same to be considered; and hence that the appellants are justified to be in Appeal.

4. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the afore submissions because, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the direction to consider the applications of the respondent under the ‘KLU Order’ was not issued for the first time in the impugned judgment, but related to an earlier direction made in Ext.P2 judgment by another learned Judge, on 17.10.2017.

5. In Ext.P2, it is evident from its first paragraph itself, that the learned Judge had recorded the contentions of the respondent that he had invoked applications under the ‘KLU Order’, even before the date of the said judgment; and it was thereupon, after hearing the learned Government Pleader also, that directions were issued that the same be considered.

6. The present contention of the appellants is that the applications under the ‘KLU Order’ was received by the competent Authority only on 06.01.2018. The learned Single Judge has found that, this by itself, would be of no consequence because, the applications were submitted either before, or pursuant to the directions in Ext.P2; and that the same bears the date 17.11.2017.

7. We do not find any reason to differ from the views of the learned Single Judge because, the facts are as they are and cannot be altered merely on the assertions of either of the parties. When Ext.P2 stands against the appellants and they had accepted it without demur, their attempt to file an Appeal against the impugned judgment would surely find no tenability.

These Appeals are, therefore, dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document