IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Alexander Thomas, J.
Iype Varghese – Petitioner
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C).No.11519 OF 2020 (L)
Decided On : 29-07-2020
Kerala Land Utilisation of Order- Rule 6(2);; The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land - Section 27A(3) -Where the party has secured orders from the notified collector in application filed under Rule 6(2) of the KLR Order, that since the paddy land has been converted as garden land even prior to coming into force of the KLU Order, no permission thereunder is required.
Statement of facts:
The subject property, to be classified as Nilam /Paddy land in the Basic Tax Register, has been converted as “garden land/purayidom” -The petitioner's predecessors earlier filed application dated 07.06.1999-For permission for change of user of the land in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU order. That the 1st respondent RDO after conducting due enquiry could find, as a matter of fact that, the subject property was converted as “garden land /purayidom” even prior to coming into the force of the KLU Order 1967-The conversion is prior to even the enforcement of the KLU order, no formal permission under Rule 6(2) of KLU order is required, thereby clearly holding that the petitioner can use the land in the way, he deems fit and proper
Finding of the court:
The party has converted the paddy land as garden land, even prior to 04.07.1967, such conversion was not in contravention of any statutory restriction and so such conversion is lawful and so the party is entitled to get fresh assessment in terms of Sec. 6A, but subject to procedural requirements of either getting clarificatory orders from the notified collector in terms of Rule 6 of the KLU Order or in a case where the said benefit was not claimed by filing application before 30.12.2017 then the party will have to necessarily seek the procedure as envisaged in Sec. 27A(3) proviso read with Rule 12(13) & (14) of the Rules, but without having to pay the fee as explicitly permitted therein.
Result: Writ Petition (Civil) disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:
It is in the light of the above averments and contentions, that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers :
“(i) Call for the records of the case leading upto Ext.P5, in so far as it is against the petitioner, and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 3 and 4 to forthwith issue necessary building permit to the petitioner as the land in question is not a paddy land or nilam a evident from Ext.P1.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to make necessary corrections in the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.