Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Deepu Paul vs The State Of Kerala on 17 February, 2025 cites

Shakeela Praveen 4 Others vs Land Reforms Tribunal And Revenue ... on 30 September, 2021

In contra to the contentions, the learned Government Pleader brought to the attention of this Court the reported decisions in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617] and Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep [2015 (1) KLT 984 (SC)]. On the strength of these reported W.P. (C) No.33677 of 2015 9 2025:KER:13816 decisions, the learned Government Pleader submitted that if the property is included in the data bank or the draft data bank prepared under the Act 28 of 2008 as paddy land or wetland and the classification of the land is noticed as 'Nilam' in revenue records, the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 would apply and the applicants need to apply to the competent authority under the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 for the purpose of removing the property from the data bank.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 0 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

The Revenue Divisional Officer vs Jalaja Dileep on 13 July, 2012

In contra to the contentions, the learned Government Pleader brought to the attention of this Court the reported decisions in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617] and Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep [2015 (1) KLT 984 (SC)]. On the strength of these reported W.P. (C) No.33677 of 2015 9 2025:KER:13816 decisions, the learned Government Pleader submitted that if the property is included in the data bank or the draft data bank prepared under the Act 28 of 2008 as paddy land or wetland and the classification of the land is noticed as 'Nilam' in revenue records, the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 would apply and the applicants need to apply to the competent authority under the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 for the purpose of removing the property from the data bank.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 418 - B M Joseph - Full Document

Jessy Abraham vs The Land Revenue Commissioner on 23 February, 2021

In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to various reported decisions such as Reliance Industries Ltd. And Others v. The Commissioner of Land Revenue and Others [2007(2) KHC 346], Antony Jayan v. State of Kerala and Others [2015 KHC 142], Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and Others v. State of Kerala and W.P. (C) No.33677 of 2015 8 2025:KER:13816 Others [2015 (1) KHC 469], Shaji Chacko v. State of Kerala and Others [2020(6) KHC 420], Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ekm and Others [2020 (2) KHC 94], Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and Others [2021 (1) KHC 540], Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram [2021 (6) KHC 316], Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270] and Line Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others [2019 (3) KHC 999]. With the support of these reported decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they need not apply under the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, since they have to apply under the provisions of Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. Moreover, the properties are included in the residential zone as available from Ext.12.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - P B Kumar - Full Document
1