DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. JALEEL HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Review Petition has been filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition. The writ petition had been filed challenging Ext.P5, whereby the petitioner was granted permission for utilising his land for non-agricultural purposes by invoking Sec. 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2008 Act') and Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, with a condition that 10% of the property should be kept aside for the purpose of water conservancy.

(2.) This Court has found that the condition imposed for reserving 10% of the area for the purpose of water conservancy, is not justified either in law or on facts. It is not a case where the petitioners approached the authorities, after the coming into force of Sec. 27A of the 2008 Act. Much before that, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.15110/2012, which was disposed of, as per Ext.P1 judgment dtd. 13/7/2012. This Court had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders on Ext.P13 produced therein, which is an application dtd. 2/12/2012. In fact, the said application has been produced by the review petitioners herein, along with the statement filed as Annexure-R2(a) in W.P.(C)No.21664 of 2021. It is specifically stated therein that the property had been filled up 12 years before, and there are trees that are 10 years old situated on the property. The fact that the application had been filed much before the introduction of Sec. 27A is clear from the documents that have been considered in Ext.P5, which includes a report of the Village Officer, Nattakom dtd. 2/3/2012.

(3.) The Review Petition is seen filed, alleging that the application that was considered while issuing Ext.P5 was an application dtd. 22/5/2018, filed after the introduction of Sec. 27A. It is hence contended that the direction to reserve 10% of the land for water conservancy cannot be faulted. The contention is not legally and factually justified. It is evident from the documents produced in the Writ Petition, by the petitioner as well as by the review petitioner herein, that what was being considered was an application that was filed in 2012.