Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
Section 27 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Jalaja Dileep vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 20 March, 1972
The
application submitted by the petitioner for changing the nature
of the land in the Basic Tax Register was rejected by the District
Collector vide Ext.P25 stating that necessary applications could
be submitted in Form 7 invoking the provisions of Section 27 of
the Act, 2008. It is worthwhile to note that the application
preferred by the petitioner as early as in the year 2006 has been
rejected as per Ext.R1(a) by a one-line order, without assigning
any reasons. The case of the petitioner that two other
WP(C) No.34040 of 2022 8
2025:KER:98634
applications are pending consideration as per the provisions of
the KLU order, ie.Ext.P7 application dated 01.09.2012 and
Ext.P12 request dated 07.01.2014. It is true that the petitioner
had, after submission of the request for permission under the
KLU order, approached the authorities filing various other
applications including application in Form No.9 and also
application before the Tahsildar for change in the nature of the
land in the BTR based on the decision of this Court in Jalaja
Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012(3) KLT 333),
but those applications were rejected. But the fact remains that a
KLU permission application was filed as early as in 2006.
Subsequent KLU permission applications are dated 01.09.2012
and 07.01.2014, which are much before Section 27(1) was
incorporated in the Statute Book. A perusal of Ext.R1(a) order
would reveal that the KLU permission application has been
rejected without assigning any reason at all. Even the appeal
filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner has been rejected
without any valid reason, as per Ext.P28.
Sukthar Ali vs The State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2015
In the light of the
categoric declaration by the Full Bench of this Court in
Mukthar Ali [supra], I am of the view that the petitioner need
not be relegated to undergo the procedure as contemplated in
Section 27(a) inasmuch as an application was filed by the
petitioner as early as in 2006, which has been rejected as per
Ext.R1(a) and that two other subsequent applications, ie.Exts.P7
and P12, are also pending consideration, which were also filed
much before the coming into force of Section 27(a) in the
Statute Book.
1