PIOUS Vs. REVENUE DIVISINAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exts.P4 and P5 and to direct the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P1 application of the petitioner within a time limit that may be prescribed by this Court.

(2.) The petitioner would state that he is the absolute owner of 33.20 Ares of property in Karukutty Village. In Revenue records, the property is shown as 'Nilam'. According to the petitioner, the land was reclaimed much prior to the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and hence the said land is not included in the Data Bank. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 27A of the Act, 2008 before the 1 st respondent to utilise the land for other purposes.

(3.) The petitioner states that since the property exceeds 20.2 Ares, he has earmarked 3.32 Ares (10%) for water conservancy measures. He had also submitted Ext.P2 survey sketch showing the demarcation of land for water conservation purpose. The 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent-Agricultural Officer to report about the water conservancy measures in the property, as per Ext.P4. The 2 nd respondent thereupon issued Ext.P5 letter stating that since water conservancy measures are not disclosed by the petitioner, further steps will be taken only after the petitioner completes the project for water conservancy measures.