Back
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20350
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
SIJO THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 24903/2018
Timely consideration of land utilization applications is essential under land laws to protect property rights.
Headnote:
Land - Property Ownership - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act, 2008 - Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - The court directed the consideration of applications for land utilization, highlighting the importance of timely processing by authorities under applicable land laws.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claims ownership of 1.99 ares of property categorized as fallow land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act, 2008, and seeks to remove this classification to utilize the land for other purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's requests and directed that the applications for land reclassification and utilization be considered expeditiously, establishing the necessity of timely actions by the authorities.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the delay in the consideration of applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act and the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, and the resulting impact on the petitioner's ability to use the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for authorities to act promptly on statutory applications to prevent undue delays that can affect property rights and utilization.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to consider applications within stipulated timelines.
JUDGMENT
According to the petitioner, petitioner is the owner of an extent of 1.99 ares of property comprised in Survey No. 57/17/2, Block No. 12 of Purapuzha Village, Thodupuzha Taluk, Idukki District. The property is included in the data bank, constituted as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wet Land Act, 2008, as 'fallow land converted 10 years back'. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the revenue records as well as in the BTR, the property is shown as nilam. In order to remove the property from the data bank, petitioner has submitted Ext. P4 application before the third respondent, which is pending consideration. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even though Ext.P6 application under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking permission for utilisation of the land for different purposes other than paddy cultivation is offered, the same is not accepted by the second respondent on the ground that only on securing orders from the third respondent, they are liable to receive the application. Petitioner seeks direction for early consideration of aforesaid applications.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider Ext. P4 application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, and attain finality, at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner is able to secure an enabling order in his favour, there will be a direction to the second respondent to accept Ext.P6 application from the petitioner and consider the same, in accordance with law, at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within three months from the date of production of the order from the third respondent. The petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of this writ petition along with appended documents before the appropriate statutory authorities.
The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.
