HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
SAHEEDA KUNJU MUHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner holds a land measuring 12.95 Ares in Survey No.864/11-2 of Vellurkunnam Village, of which a portion measuring 2.33 Ares is shown in the Revenue Records as 'Nilam'. The same, however, is not included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). The land therefore falls within the definition of 'un-notified land' in terms of the provisions of the Act. In order to make use of the land for other purposes, the petitioner preferred an application for permission under Section 27A of the Act. On the said application, having satisfied that the land of the petitioner would fall within the definition of 'un-notified land', the first respondent has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.11,18,400/- towards the fees payable by her under Section 27A(3) of the Act. Ext.P5 is the communication issued in this regard by the first respondent. Ext.P5 is under challenge in the writ petition.
2. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that she is liable to pay only 20% of the fair value of the land towards the fees un
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.