Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30182
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
MR BALAGOPAL V B – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 15004/2018
Administrative bodies must act expeditiously on land use applications as mandated by relevant laws.
Headnote:
Land - Land Utilization - Kerala Land Utilisation Order - 6 - The court directed timely consideration of applications regarding land exclusion and conversion in accordance with procedural mandates under the Land Utilisation Order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the deletion of 225.01 Ares of land from the Land Data Bank and sought orders for land use conversion under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's application to delete the land from the Land Data Bank and stipulated timelines for decision-making.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to have his land removed from the Land Data Bank and to seek conversion of land use effectively under the relevant provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of prompt administrative action concerning land use applications under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed with directions for timely consideration of the applications.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has preferred Ext.P11 application before the 3rd respondent, seeking a deletion of his land comprising of 225.01 Ares of property in Re-Sy.Nos.104/1-3; 104/1-4; 104/4-3; 91/1-19; 91/1-16; 103/2A8; 104/1-3; 103/1-2; 103/1-9; 94/2-1; 103/1-4 and 104/1-6 of Chembu Village of Vaikam Taluk from the Land Data Bank prepared for the region. Similarly, he has preferred Ext.P10 application before the 2nd respondent for passing appropriate orders under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order . The limited prayer is for a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider and pass orders on the applications preferred by the petitioner, expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:
(i) The 3rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 application preferred by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if need be, after hearing the petitioner.
(ii) In the event of the 3rd respondent passing an order excluding the land belonging to the petitioner from the Land Data Bank, then the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P10 application preferred by the petitioner for conversion of user of the said land, and pass orders thereon within a period of one month from the date of production of the order of the 3rd respondent, before him.
(iii) The petitioner shall, in the event of receipt of the order from the 3rd respondent, and the order from the 2nd respondent permitting conversion under the KLU Order, produce copies of the same before the Land Tax Authorities, for causing a fresh assessment and consequential change in the classification of the land in the Basic Tax Register.
