SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 71326

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.SAJITHA – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) 19854/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TH WEDNESDAY, THE 12 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 19854 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

C.SAJITHA, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.SELVAN,RITHI BHAVAN, KIZHAKKANCHERRY.P.O., KIZHAKKANCHERRY VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678684 BY ADV MINI.V.A.

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, ALATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, ALATHUR, PIN - 678688

3 THE TAHSILDAR(LR), ALATHUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICER, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678541 *ADDL.4 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695033 *ADDL.5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ALATHUR, PIN – 678 688 *ADDL.6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALATHUR VILLAGE, PIN – 678 688 *ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 IN I.A. NO.1/2025.

BY ADV.

ADV AMMINIKUTTY K -SR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of a property having an extent of 4.21 Ares comprised in Re.Sy.No.50/15 (Old Sy.No.226/5C) in Block No.27 of Alathur Village. The petitioner purchased the said property as per the sale deed dated 07.04.2022 of SRO, Alathur. According to the petitioner, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner earlier submitted an application under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and the same was allowed as per Ext.P2 order dated 13.04.1993 by which permission was granted to convert the property for residential purpose. Thereafter, as the property was included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Paddy Land Act'), the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5. Later, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.27736/2023 for expeditious disposal of the Form 5 application. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment in which direction was issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Form 5 application taking note of the order passed under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The 1st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, issued Ext.P7 order rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging the said order.

2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. In the said statement, it was averred that, even though the property was granted permission to be converted under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order, such permission was subjected to certain conditions. It was also averred that, as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the property was not physically converted for residential purposes as permitted under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and currently the property is lying fallow. Therefore, it was reported by the Agricultural Officer, the same has to be retained in the Data Bank. It is also averred that, on the northern side of the property, there is Palakkad- Thrissur Highway and the rest of the boundaries are currently paddy lands and therefore exclusion of the property from the Data Bank will adversely affect the adjacent paddy lands.

3. Heard Smt.Mini.V.A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Amminikutty K., learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 order, which was passed by the 1st respondent, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner in support of the challenge is that, the property is already converted prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act, on the strength of Ext.P2 permission granted to the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top