Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The High Court of Kerela held that there is no absolute prohibition in considering an application seeking permission to use paddy land for residential utility, even if the property was purchased after the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetlands Act 2008('The Act'). A single bench of Justice Alexander Thomas set aside the order passed by the district Collector which rejected an application seeking permission under Section 9 of the Act for use of purpose of residential purposes.
A writ petition filed by one K Murali was considered by The Court, who sought
Such permission on the ground that he belonged to the urban poor category. District collector referred to a 2017 decision of the Kerela HC in Thankachan v. District Collector [2017 (3) KLT 35], which held that a person who obtained the property after the commencement of 2008 Act cannot seek permission for converting it for residential use.
It was also pointed out that the division bench in Yousuf Chalil v.State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 33] had observed that there was no express prohibition in considering such an application
Justice Alexander Thomas held, after taking an of the division bench decision in Yousuf Chalil:
“In the light of the abovesaid categorical view rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Yousuf Chalil's case (supra) [2019 (4) KLT 540], the approach made by the 2nd respondent District Collector as if an application preferred by a party like a petitioner seeking the benefit of Sec.9 of the 2008 Act for permission to construct a residential building in the limited extent of land should be automatically dismissed or rejected merely on the ground that the party concerned has obtained the said property after coming into force of the 2008 Act by itself cannot be justifiable. Such a strict approach made by the 2nd respondent, District Collector as per the impugned Ext.P6 separate order, may not be justifiable or warranted in the light of the categorical views rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Yousuf Chalil's case (supra) [2019 (4) KLT 540]”.
However, the court clarified that it does mean that the petition application should have been allowed automatically. The court disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities to consider the application afresh by ascertaining the correctness of the assertions of the Petitioner.
86540
103860
630
114
59824