MILI.M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P13 order issued by the 5th respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short), as per which, his application under the proviso to Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Paddy Land Act' for short) has been rejected holding that the petitioner has not been able to prove that his property, comprised of in Re- Surey No.712/1 of Kachery Village, was converted prior to 04/07/1967, the date on which the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLU Order for short) came into effect.

(2.) The petitioner says that even though all germane documents were produced before the RDO, as is evident from Ext.P11, none of them were considered and that the said Authority has concluded, as has been done in Ext.P13, without proper application of mind. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P13, be set aside and that his application, namely Ext.P9 herein, be directed to be reconsidered, particularly taking note of the earlier round of litigation which culminated in Ext.P10 judgment.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader- Shri.Paul Abraham Vakkanal, in response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel Shri.L.Rajesh Narayan Iyer, submits that the RDO was incapacitated from allowing the petitioner's application, because no corroborating evidence or materials had been produced by him before the said Authority to establish that the property in question was converted prior to 04/07/1967. He says that the Authority has, therefore, only directed the petitioner to make an application under Section 27A(1)of the Paddy Land Act and that this cannot be found to be at fault; and consequentially prays that this writ petition be dismissed.