MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Nikkie Varughese John, S/o. John Varghese – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 18.10 Ares (44.72 cents) of land comprised in Re.Sy Nos.274/12 and 274/13 in Block No.39 of Puthencruz village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, as per sale deed No. 279 of 2006 dated 11.01.2006 of Puthencruz SRO. The said land is classified as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register and included as paddy land in the Data Bank published under Section 5 (4) (i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Act, 2008'].
2. The petitioner filed an application dated 29.11.2021 before the 1st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to remove the said property from the Data Bank. The 2nd respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), by Ext. P2, reported that the land was converted before 2008 and recommended to exclude the property from the Data Bank. On the basis of Ext. P2 report, the RDO passed Ext. P3 order dated 24.01.2022 excluding the property from the Data Bank as per Rule 4(4F) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Rules, 2008'].
3. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext. P4 application in Form No.6 under Section 27A of Act, 2008 before the RDO
Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan
Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania
Naresh Kumar and others v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar
Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh
Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji
Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya
State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records and Settlement
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.