Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
MANAPPURAM FINANCE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY – Respondent
WP(C)/8521/2019
Paddy Land - Writ Petition - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 27A - The court ruled that satellite images are unnecessary for proving land classification for reconsideration under the Act, emphasizing the interpretation of the term 'unnotified land'.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the RDO's rejection of their application under the Kerala Paddy Land Act, claiming their land wasn't 'paddy land', thus arguing the necessity of satellite images was unfounded.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the RDO's decision lacked justification as the requirement for satellite images was misplaced when classifying the land under the Act. It emphasized that the RDO must reconsider the situation without relying on this erroneous requirement.
Issues: Whether the RDO's rejection of the application was valid by insisting on satellite images in light of the land's classification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that in matters concerning land classification under Section 27A of the Act, satellite imagery is not a requisite to ascertain the status of unnotified lands.
Final Decision: The writ petition is granted; the RDO is directed to reconsider the application.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P2, whereby, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short) has rejected their application preferred under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Paddy Land Act' for short), merely for the reason that satellite images with respect to the property had not been obtained from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). The petitioner says that Ext.P2 is untenable because their property is not a 'paddy land', and is not included in the Data Bank, but only that it continues to be classified as one in the Basic Tax Register and Revenue Records. They say that since it is thus an 'unnotified land', as per the Paddy Land Act, it clearly means that it is not a paddy land and therefore, that there was no requirement for the RDO to seek its satellite images.
2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent, submits that the application of the petitioner can be reconsidered in tune with the requirements under Section 27A of the Act and that this can be done without any further delay after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also. She says that Ext.P2 had been issued by the RDO under the impression that the satellite imagery is also necessary for passing an order under of the Act.
3. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that when the RDO makes an order under Section 27A of the Act, it presupposes that the property is a “garden land”, which is not included in the Data Bank but only that it is remaining as a 'Nilam' only in the Basic Tax Register and Revenue Records. Obviously, therefore, there is no requirement for a satellite image to prove this and I am therefore, of the view that the RDO must reconsider the matter de hors Ext.P2.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P2 and direct the RDO to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; and then issue necessary orders, following due procedure, without any further delay but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
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
