JACOB BOBAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ SUB COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These review petitions are filed aggrieved by the declaration in para.2 of the concluding portion of the impugned order which reads thus:

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the review petitioners, this is against the discussions made in the impugned order. The learned counsel points out that this Court having adverted to Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, ought not have again ordered that, those land holders who have obtained an order under clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilisation Order will have to resort to procedure under Sec. 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Paddy Act') by submitting an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

(3.) The above argument is apparently correct. Rule 12(17) is, in fact, intended to obviate the procedure contemplated under Sec. 27A of the Paddy Act, when permission has been granted by the Collector under KLUO for other purposes.