Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
GREEN VALLEY TRUST – Appellant
Versus
C R SUMESH Advocate -SRI C B SREEKUMAR – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 32403/2016
Conservation - Land Status - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act - Sections 13, 28 - The Court upheld that the agricultural report classified the land as paddy land, thereby validating the order under the 2008 Act and confirming the avenue for revision against the order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order by the District Collector claiming the land was not paddy or wetland under the 2008 Act. The petitioner argued that Ext.P9 was made without considering the land's true nature.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the Agricultural Officer's report, which identified the land as paddy land and concluded that the writ petition could not succeed. The court affirmed that the correct remedy was a revision as provided under Section 28 of the 2008 Act.
Issues: Whether the land in question qualifies as paddy land under the 2008 Act, and the appropriateness of the deemed remedy through a writ petition versus revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision emphasized the report's findings on land classification and the proper legal recourse (revision) available under the 2008 Act for challenging administrative orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with the petitioner allowed to seek revision under Section 28 of the 2008 Act.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P9 order, passed by the District Collector, under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 [hereinafter referred to as '2008 Act']. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the land in question is not a paddy land or wetland, for the purposes of inclusion in the land data bank as contemplated under the 2008 Act, and therefore, Ext.P9 order is passed without adverting to the real nature of the land.
2. When the matter came up for orders, this Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Agricultural Officer, to file a report before this Court, showing the nature and lie of the land. A report has since been filed by the Agricultural Officer, which indicates clearly that the land in question is a paddy land for the purposes of inclusion in the land data bank prepared in terms of the 2008 Act. Placing reliance on the said report of the 3rd respondent, I find that, the prayers in the writ petition cannot be granted and the remedy of the petitioner against the findings in Ext.P9 order on merits would lie in a revision, that he can prefer against the said order before the State Government, in terms of Section 28 of the 2008 Act. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the State Government through a revision under of the 2008 Act, the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P9 order is dismissed.
While dismissing the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P9 order and with a view to enabling the petitioner to pursue his revisionary remedy against Ext.P9 order before the State Government, I direct that, the stay, that was granted by this Court against the operation of Ext.P9 order, during the pendency of the writ petition, shall continue to remain in force, for a period of two weeks.
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
