SABEENA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions have come up before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court, as per the Order dated 14th day of September, 2020 in and connected cases, and orders subsequently made in the other writ petitions, doubting the correctness of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala [2019 KHC 5618=2019(4) KLT 540=ILR 2019 4 Ker. 531], and on a consequential reference order dtd. 1/2/2022 passed by the Division Bench.

(2.) The basic question involved in all these writ petitions is, whether a person, who purchased a bit of paddy land after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter called 'the Act, 2008), is entitled to prefer an application under Sec. 5(3)(i) r/w Sec. 9 of Act, 2008 for permission to reclaim the same, for construction of a residential building.

(3.) In fact, the said question was answered in the negative by a learned single Judge of this Court in Thankachan v. District Collector [2017 (3) KLT 35], which was followed by a learned single Judge in Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 33]; however the said Judgment was reversed by a Division Bench in Yousuf Chalil (supra), and held that applications filed by the purchasers of a bit of paddy land, for reclamation for construction of a residential building, after the coming into force of Act, 2008 are also liable to be considered by the statutory authorities under Act, 2008. The petitioners in the instant writ petitions are claiming the benefit of the Division Bench judgment in Yousuf Chalil (supra).