T.R.Jayan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer … on 2 April, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 6457 of 2009(B)


1. T.R.JAYAN, S/O.RAMAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO)
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK,

3. RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH & THE

4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOSE THOMAS (PALA)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :02/04/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                  W.P.(C) NO. 6457 OF 2009 (B)
                 =====================

             Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner submits that he is the owner of the land covered

by Ext.P1. Although according to the petitioner, the land is a fully

developed garden land, in the revenue records, it is shown as

‘Nilam’. It is stated that he wanted to construct a building and he

applied under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, which is rejected

as per Ext.P8. It is stated that thereafter he made an application

under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act

2008, which according to the petitioner has been returned by

Ext.P9, directing him to produce the order passed by the Revenue

Divisional Officer. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is

filed.

2. Prima facie, it is seen that this is a case where the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act is applicable. If

that be so, the procedure that is laid down in Section 5 has to be

complied with. Panchayat submits that the Committee is in place

and that it is for that Committee constituted by the Panchayat to

consider the matter and to make recommendation to the District

WPC 6457/09
:2 :

Level Committee for their final decision.

3. In view of the above, it is directed that it will be open

to the petitioner to make an application to the Committee

constituted as per Section 5(3)(1) of the Act. It is directed that if

an application is received as above, the Committee shall consider

the application in the light of the aforesaid provision and forward

the application of the petitioner to the District Level Committee

for its eventual decision under Section 9(1).

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp