Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1444 (KER)

V. M. Hassan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2024-11-07

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

body2024
JUDGMENT : Mohammed Nias C.P., J. W.P.(C) No.19482 of 2023 The prayer in the writ petition was to consider Ext.P3 objection preferred by him challenging the construction of a building by the fourth respondent on a paddy field. It is submitted by both sides that the petitioner obtained permission under Form-5 and Form-6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules. Accordingly, the prayers in this writ petition become infructuous and the same is closed as infructuous. WP(C) NO. 26813 OF 2023 The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order purportedly passed under Section 27A(11) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 2. Petitioner's application under Form-6 filed on the premise that the property was not included in the data bank was allowed as per Ext.P4 order, dated 21.11.2022, imposing three conditions; namely that the natural sources in the property should be protected, that in case water cess is being paid, it shall be continued to be paid and that the construction activities, if any, shall not adversely affect the neighbouring properties. Based on a complaint preferred by the sixth respondent, who is the petitioner in the connected writ petition, Ext.P8 order was passed cancelling Ext.P4 order purportedly invoking the the power under Section 27A(11). Section 27A(11) reads as follows: “27A(11) The Revenue Divisional Officer may, either suo motu or on the application of any aggrieved party, cancel any order issued under sub-section (2) if the conditions specified in the order issued therein are not complied by the applicant, either fully or partially.” 3. A reading of Ext.P8 does not show that any of the conditions imposed in Ext.P4 have been violated by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, there was a building in existence in the property which was sought to be reconstructed. Ext.P5 application preferred by the petitioner for regularization was pending consideration, to which the Panchayat has responded through Ext.P6 noting certain defects. During the pendency of the application for regularization, Ext.P8 order was passed. Ext.P8 order, for the short reason that the same was passed without finding any violation of the conditions specified in Ext.P4 order allowing the Form-6, cannot be allowed to stand and the same is quashed. During the pendency of the application for regularization, Ext.P8 order was passed. Ext.P8 order, for the short reason that the same was passed without finding any violation of the conditions specified in Ext.P4 order allowing the Form-6, cannot be allowed to stand and the same is quashed. This Court in the judgment reported in Sakeer Hussain and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2020 KHC 647 ] held that the power under Section 27A(11) cannot be invoked for any reasons, other than the one stated, namely for non-compliance of the conditions in the order passed under Section 27A. 4. Since Ext.P8 states that the land in question is included in the data bank, the petitioner had, by way of abundant caution, filed an application under Form-5 as well, which was directed to be considered by this court through an interim order dated 27.02.2024. Accordingly, orders were passed allowing the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner and the same is produced by the petitioner as Ext.P15. Under such circumstances and since the Form-5 application as well as the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner stands allowed, no objection can be taken under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 5. In the light of the above developments, there will be a direction to the fifth respondent to take up Ext.P5 application for regularization submitted by the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above.