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

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29926

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SIBY ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT ENGINEER – Respondent


Petitioner is the owner of an extent of 12.14

ares of property situate in Sy.No. 837/1A of

Kothamangalam Village. Property was a reclaimed

land, converted more than 50 years back. The nature

of the property shown in the data bank constituted

as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of

Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (herein after

referred to as the Act, 2008) as converted land.

Petitioner thereupon made an application under

Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967,

seeking permission for utilisation of the property

for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and

agricultural operations. Petitioner submitted an

application for building permit and thereafter

secured Ext.P4 judgment whereby certain directions

were issued to the Secretary of the Municipality for

consideration of the application submitted by the

3

petitioner. Evidently, petitioner has secured an

order from the Revenue Divisional Officer that is

Ext.P5, subject to certain conditions including the

financial commitments prescribed under Section 27 A

of the Act, 2008 as amended by Act, 2018. It was

also directed to secure necessary orders in the

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top