Two Authorities Empowered To Redress Same Grievance Via Two Different Procedures: Kerala High Court Points Lacuna In 2008 Wetland Conservation Rules
Case: Niyas V The District Collector Palakkad
Coram: Justice Viju Abraham
Case No.: WP(C) NO. 36700 OF 2022
Court Observation: It is quite strange to note that even though two authorities have been empowered for the redressal of the grievance, two different procedures have been laid down for consideration of an application under Form 5 by the two authorities. If the aggrieved person makes an application before the LLMC, it has to conduct a local inspection to find out the lie and nature of the land and shall also take steps to obtain the satellite images of the property as on 12.08.2008 and also after that date, and based on the same a decision has to be taken. On the contrary, if an application is filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer as provided under Rule 4(4d), he only has to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer and after receipt of the said report, if he deems fit, he may conduct a local inspection and call for a satellite imagery in respect of the property and take appropriate decision on the application,
This appears to be a lacuna in the Rules and I am of the opinion that the procedure that has to be followed by the LLMC for deciding an application under Form 5 should be followed by the Revenue Divisional Officer also while considering a similar application. The Revenue Divisional Officer has no specialized mechanism to examine as to whether the property is a paddy land or not as on 12.08.2008, the date of which the Act, 2008 came into force. As per the Act, to determine a land as paddy land or not is based on the facts that existed at the time when Act 28 of 2008 came into force ie., on 12.08.2008.
Previous Posts
