Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing A.R.Sivadasan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 February, 2008

Savio Joseph vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub ... on 6 March, 2020

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1 st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P2 application in the light of the judgments in RDO V. Jalaja Dileep, Sivadasan V. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2017 (3) KLT 822, Puthenpurakkal Joseph Vs. Sub Collector, Renji K. Paul V. RDO Muvattupuzha, 2019 (2) KLT 262, Shanmugam V. District Collector, 2019 (2) KLT 45, Line Properties Private Limited V. The State Of Kerala, 2019 (3) KLT 420, and Geo Peter V. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2019 (3) KLT 839 or 2019 (4) KHC 400, Tahsildar Thodupuzha Taluk V. Renjith George, 2020(1) KHC 865 (DB) and in the light of the reports of the village officer, Eloor and Agricultural officer, Eloor and grant permission to utilize 8.9 Ares of land comprised in Re.Sy. No.27 in Block No.173 of Eloor Village, covered by T P No.16151 of Eloor Village, Paravoor Taluk, for other purpose including construction of building, as per clause 6 of KLUO 1967.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document

Brigade Hospitality Services Limited vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2020

[ WP(C).34699/2019, WP(C).34804/2019, WP(C).34811/2019 ] Dated this the 13th day of January 2020 These writ petitions are filed by petitioners challenging order dated 15.2.2019 and 12.02.2019 (Ext.P8), granting permission to utilise the land for other purposes, subject to imposition of conditions by applying the provisions of Sections 27A and 27A (3)of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 as amended by Act 2019. The Petitioner had sought permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for utilisation of the land for other purposes. However, the said request was declined by the 2 nd respondent based on Ext.P5 circular. The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.30057 of 2017 and this Court allowed the said writ petition relying on the dictum laid down by this Court in Sivadasan vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2017 (3) KLT 822.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Rawal - Full Document

P.K.Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2020

3. It is beyond any factual controversy, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 application immediately after Ext.P1 judgment dated 18.9.2015. Ext.P5 application has been recommended by the 4 th respondent as can be seen from Ext.P6 report dated 18.1.2016. The 3 rd respondent District Collector has rejected Ext.P5 petition as per Ext.P7 order solely on the ground that such permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order cannot be granted for use of the subject property for W.P.(C)No.6579/2020 5 commercial purpose. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the date of Ext.P7 proceedings is shown as 5.2.2015, it could only be a mistake as even Ext.P6 report is seen filed on 18.1.2016 and so it appears that the correct date of Ext.P7 may be 5.2.2016. It is by now well settled by a series of rulings of this Court as in Sivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2017 (3) KLT 822] and Shahul Hameed v. Principal Secretary, Local Self Government [2018 (1) KLT 1008 (DB)] that the plea for permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order cannot be rejected on the ground that the property is intended to be used for commercial purpose and that permission could be granted for use of the subject property for any non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, the impugned rejection as per Ext.P7 order is vitiated by illegality and unreasonableness and it is only be rescinded. Accordingly, Ext.P7 order will stand set aside. Ordinarily an application filed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order is to be considered at the first instance by the 4th respondent RDO who has also notified to exercise all the original powers of the Collector. In view of the setting aside of the impugned Ext.P7 order, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P9 order will also stand set aside. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this case, it is ordered that further consideration of Ext.P10 revision petition is unnecessary. It is by now well settled where the application under Rule 6(2)of the KLU Order,1967 has been filed by the property owner before 30.12.2017 (date of coming W.P.(C)No.6579/2020 6 into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act), then the said application is to be considered strictly in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order and in such a case the rigorous provisions contained in the amended provisions of the Act introducing Section 27A thereof, then the said application is to be considered strictly in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(2)of the KLU Order and in such a case the rigorous provisions contained in the amended provisions of the 2008 Act introducing Section 27A thereof, cannot be pressed into service against the property owner concerned. In this case, it is beyond any dispute that Ext.P7 application has been filed much prior to 30.12.2017 as even the impugned Ext.P7 rejection order was passed on 5.2.2016. Hence, it is ordered in the interest of justice that Ext.P5 application will stand remitted to the 4 th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer for consideration and decision afresh. Since Ext.P5 earlier filed before the 3 rd respondent District Collector to avoid any further delay, it is ordered that copy of Ext.P5 application as produced in the W.P.(C) shall be treated by the 4 th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer as the application filed under Rule 6(2) before him. The learned Government Pleader will ensure that an attested copy of Ext.P5 application as produced in this Writ Petition along with certified copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the 4 th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer and thereupon the 4 th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer will treat the said material as Ext.P5 W.P.(C)No.6579/2020 7 application filed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967. The 4 th respondent will then take up the matter in Ext.P5 for consideration and after following requisite procedure and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner , will render a considered decision on the plea made in Ext.P5 for conversion of the subject property as garden land or purayidom and for its use for any non-agricultural purposes, without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document

Lambochan Mathew vs The District Collector on 6 April, 2022

issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 application in the light of the Judgments in Alex P. Abraham V. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2021 (1) KLT 543 RDO V. Jalaja Dileep, Sivadasan V. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2017 (3) KLT 822, Renji K. Paul V. RDO Muvattupuzha, 2019 (2) KLT 262, and Geo Peter V. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2019 (3) KLT 839 or 2019 (4) KHC 400, and grant permission to utilize 12.29 Ares (30.36 cents) of land in Sy.No.945/3 and 970/1-2 in Kaduthuruthy Village covered by T P No.13154 and 9560 respectively of Kaduthuruthy Village for other purpose including construction of building, as per clause 6 of KLUO 1967.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Sivaraman - Full Document
1