Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The petitioner is concerned with 7 cents of property comprised in Survey No.385/3 of Thrikkur village. The petitioner's property is not included in the data bank prepared under Section 5(4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for connected cases brevity "Paddy Land Act"] is the contention raised. The petitioner filed an application under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 [for brevity "KLU Order"], at Exhibit P10, before the Revenue Divisional Officer [for brevity "RDO"]. The RDO by Exhibit P12 rejected the same on the ground of Exhibit P13 Circular. Exhibit P13 has been set aside in Shivadasan. In such circumstances, the RDO shall re-consider Exhibit P10 application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order in accordance with the directions/declaration in Shivadasan, after getting a report from the Local Level Monitoring Committee [for brevity "LLMC"] as to whether the property is included and if included, the exact description as available from the data bank; to facilitate which Exhibit P12 is set aside. The same shall be done within a period of two months.
3. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 24.08 Ares of land in Survey No.774/1 of Mellor Village in Thrissur District. He has constructed a commercial building in the property, after obtaining a building permit. The local authority initiated steps to cancel building permit on the ground that the property is described as "paddy land" in the revenue records. The petitioner filed reply to the notice;

connected cases but, however, the local authority insisted for an order of conversion. Accordingly, the petitioner was before the District Collector under Clause 6 of the KLU Order, which application was rejected by Exhibit P14 based on Exhibit P15 Circular. Exhibit P15 has been set aside by this Court in Shivadasan. Exhibits P16 and P17 are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the District Collector shall re-consider Exhibit P12 application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order in accordance with the directions/declaration in Shivadasan, after getting a report from the Local Level Monitoring Committee [for brevity "LLMC"] as to whether the property is included and if included, the exact description as available from the data bank; to facilitate which Exhibit P14 is set aside. The same shall be done within a period of two months.

4. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 15.25 cents of land, comprised in Survey No.127/1 of Cheriyamundam Village in Tirur Taluk. The land in question is included in the data bank as "converted land". The petitioner had applied for a building permit, which was rejected; against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector and then approached this Court. This Court, by connected cases Exhibit P2 directed consideration of a representation for correction in the data bank register. On consideration, the District Collector rejected the request, at Exhibit P5. The petitioner then filed an application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order before the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was rejected as per Exhibit P8 for reason of the Circular at Exhibit P9. Exhibit P9 Circular has been set aside in Shivadasan. In the above circumstances, the RDO shall re-consider the application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order in accordance with the directions/declaration in Shivadasan, after getting a report from the Local Level Monitoring Committee [for brevity "LLMC"] as to whether the property is included and if included, the exact description as available from the data bank; to facilitate which Exhibit P8 is set aside. The same shall be done within a period of two months.

5. The petitioners, who are joint owners, are concerned with 9.94 Ares of property in Re-survey No.142/4 of Nellikode Village, Kozhikode Corporation. The petitioners were earlier before this Court challenging the rejection of of the building permit, in which Exhibit P1 judgment was passed; wherein the petitioners were directed to file an application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order, since the land was not connected cases included in the data bank and only the revenue records showed the description of the property as "nilam". The petitioners then approached the Revenue Divisional Officer; by Exhibit P2, an application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order. This was rejected by Exhibit P3 on the basis of Exhibit P6 Circular. Exhibit P6 Circular has been set aside in Shivadasan. In such circumstances, the RDO shall re-consider Exhibit P2 application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order in accordance with the directions/declaration in Shivadasan, after getting a report from the Local Level Monitoring Committee [for brevity "LLMC"] as to whether the property is included and if included, the exact description as available from the data bank; to facilitate which Exhibit P3 is set aside. The same shall be done within a period of two months.