High Court Kerala High Court

K.Rajendran vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Rajendran vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1516 of 2008()


1. K.RAJENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE,

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM

4. DR.V.K.JAYAKUMAR, MANAGER, SABARI GIRI

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SMT.S.KARTHIKA

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :03/03/2010

 O R D E R
                           P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. &
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
               ....................................................................
                        Writ Appeal No.1516 of 2008
               ....................................................................
                 Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge

rejecting appellant’s challenge against filling up of paddy field by a

School for the purpose of the School, which itself is done after

obtaining permission from the concerned authorities.

2. We have heard counsel for the appellant. Admittedly school

was already set up in the converted land which was originally paddy

field. When the land available with the school was insufficient for the

purpose of the school, the school authorities requested the R.D.O. to

permit filling of 37 cents of paddy field for the purpose of school. The

R.D.O. on being satisfied about the additional requirement of land for

the school, permitted the same, against which the W.P.(C) was filed.

The appellant’s case is that appellant being neighbouring paddy field

owner is not able to cultivate paddy on account of filling neighbouring

paddy land by the school authorities. If the paddy land of the appellant

W.A. 1516/2008 2

has ceased to be unfit for paddy cultivation, we feel the only recourse

open to the appellant is to ask for permission for conversion of his

paddy land also for utilisation for other purposes. Since we find no

merit in the Writ Appeal, we dismiss the same but with the above

observation.

P.R.RAMAN
Acting Chief Justice

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

pms