ABRAHAM GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P8 is an application preferred by the petitioner in Form No.5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules (the Rules) for removal of the property of the petitioner referred to in the writ petition from the data bank prepared in terms of the Kerala conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). Ext.P4 is another application preferred by the petitioner earlier in Form No.6 of the Rules for permission to utilize the said land which is an un-notified land in terms of the Act, for other purposes. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the second respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P8 and Ext.P4 applications.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) It is seen that the data bank referred to in the writ petition is not a notified one. Nevertheless, insofar as the petitioner has already filed an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes invoking Section 27A of the Act before the second respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take up and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 application in accordance with law, if the same is received and pending, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Ordered accordingly. If Ext.P8 application is allowed, it is also directed that orders shall be passed by the second respondent simultaneously on Ext.P4 application as well. This shall be done within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P6 order of the Government. If the applications directed to be disposed of are found defective, the defect shall be intimated to the petitioner by the second respondent immediately on production of a copy of this judgment, and the second respondent will be entitled to avail the time taken by the petitioner to cure the defects in the applications also, for compliance of the directions contained in this judgment. It is made clear that the hearing in terms of this judgment can either be physical or through video conference.