M. RANJITH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:-

(2.) Heard Sri. P.N. Mohannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and Sri. R. Sreehari, learned standing Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent (Ongallur Grama Panchayat).

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the subject property, though continues to be described as 'nilam/paddy land' was converted as 'garden land/purayidom' long prior to 12/8/2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008) and that as a matter of fact the petitioner's predecessor, who owned the said property had filed an application before the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam, seeking for permission for change of user of the land under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, (for short the KLU Order) as early as in the year 1993 and the same was rejected as per order No. KDis.2124/93 dtd. 13/8/1993 (referred to as item No. 1 in Ext.P-4. Being aggrieved by the said rejection order issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner's predecessor had challenged the same by filing appeal in terms of Rule 11 of the KLU Order before the Board of Revenue as per appeal petition dtd. 17/11/1993 (referred to as item No. 2 in Ext.P-4). Thereupon, the Board of Revenue (Appellate Authority) had called for a report of the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, who had furnished report no. H.451/94 dtd. 21/12/1994 in the matter (referred to as item No. 3 in Ext.P-4). Thereafter the petitioner's predecessor was heard in detail by the Board of Revenue and it was found that the act on the part of the 3rd respondent in having rejected the plea of the petitioner's predecessor under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order as per order dtd. 13/8/1993 is discriminatory inasmuch as an identically situated property was given the said benefit of permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order. Accordingly the appellate authority (Board of Revenue) has allowed the said appeal dtd. 17/11/1993, filed by the petitioner's predecessor as per Ext.P-4 appellate order dtd. 16/10/1995, issued on behalf of the Board of Revenue.