2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18080
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
DR SAFIA BAVA – Appellant
Versus
CONVENER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 4654/2018
The court upheld the principle of timely processing of land use applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and related statutes.
Headnote:
Land - Ownership - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Sections related to application processing
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claims ownership of multiple land parcels but faces challenges due to the classification of the land as 'nilam' under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, leading to pending application issues.
Issues: Whether the 2nd and 6th respondents should expedite the processing of the petitioner's applications under the applicable land laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely decision-making by statutory authorities in compliance with land utilization and conservation laws.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions for prompt processing of applications.
J U D G M E N T
According to the petitioner, petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 20.88 Ares of property comprised in Sy.No.171/2, 171/3-3/6 of Puthenvelikkara Village. So also petitioner is in ownership of 2.83 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.201/1A/112 of the very same Village. It is the case of the petitioner that, even though the property is remaining as dry land in the village records and the BTR, it is remaining as 'nilam'. So also it is included in the data bank constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 application before the 2nd respondent, which is pending consideration. Petitioner has also submitted Ext.P5 application before the 6th respondent under the provisions of Kerala Land Utilization Order seeking utilization of the land for different purposes other than paddy cultivation and seeks direction for early disposal of the same.
2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 in accordance with law and attain finality at the earliest possible time 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 a favourable order from the 2nd respondent, Ext.P5 shall be considered by the 6th respondent in accordance with law and attain finality at the earliest possible time and at any rate within three months from the date of production of order from the LLMC. Petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of this writ petition along with all appended documents before the respective statutory authority.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.