SHAREEFA Vs. SUB COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner's husband is the co-owner of 12.48 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.309 in Tanur Village, Tirur Taluk. The petitioner is managing the property as her husband is employed abroad. The property is 'dry land'. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the land as 'wet land' and included it in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules', for brevity). To rectify the misclassification of the land, the petitioner's husband and the other co-owners had submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5 under Rule 4 (4d) of the Rules before the 1st respondent. As there was an inordinate delay in considering the application, the petitioner's husband filed W.P.(C) No.24574/2024 before this Court. By Ext.P4 judgment, the 1st respondent was directed to consider the application within one month. Nevertheless, the 1st respondent rejected the application by Ext.P7 order, which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

(2.) When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, this Court questioned the petitioner's locusstandi to file the writ petition, since she is neither the owner of the property nor the power of attorney holder.

(3.) I have heard Sri. C.M. Mohammed Iquabal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Deepa V., the learned Government Pleader.