C .K. OMANA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner in possession of 3 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.195/21 in Block No.14 of Kallelibhagom Village and another extent of land having an extent of 02.80 Ares comprised in Re-Survey No.195/5 in the same village covered by Ext.P1 sale deed and Ext.P2 tax receipt, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 proceedings dated 27.02.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has sought for a declaration that the 2nd respondent has no power to invoke Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder, when Ext.P6 application filed by the petitioner is pending consideration of the 8th respondent, requesting for deletion of the land having an extent of 2.80 Ares in Kallelibhagom Village, Karunagappally Taluk, from the data bank, on the premise that the said land was entered in the data bank erroneously, though the land was reclaimed, prior to the coming into force the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 with effect from 12.08.2008. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 8th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 application within a time limit to be fixed by this Court; directing the 2 nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P10 appeal, in accordance with law, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court; and directing the 3rd respondent not to take further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 proceedings, until Exts.P6 and P10 are disposed by the competent authorities before whom they are pending.

(2.) On 22.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that, against Ext.P9 order, the remedy open to the petitioner is to file a revision before the Government, under Section 28 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

(3.) Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P15 revision petition filed by the petitioner before the additional 11th respondent challenging Ext.P9 order, along with a stay petition.