whether the order of conversion of land passed by the Tahsildar under Kerala Land Tax Act would circumvent the provisions of beneficial legislations such as Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967? = Apex court held that Section 18 cannot be made use or the same cannot be taken as a means to effect conversion of the nature of the land bye-passing the competent authority and the procedure stipulated under the KLU Order, 1967 and the Kerala Wetland Act, 2008 and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.-2015 S.C.msklawreports


 whether the order of conversion of land passed by the  Tahsildar
under Kerala Land Tax Act would  circumvent  the  provisions  of  beneficial
legislations such as Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008  and
the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967? = 
Statutory enquiry to ascertain whether  the  land  is  a  "Paddy
Land" or "Wetland" and conversion of the land  for  residential  purpose  or
for any public purpose is governed by KLU Order or the Kerala  Wetland  Act,
2008 for conversion of the land from "Nilam" (Wetland) to  'Purayidam'  (Dry
Land).   The concerned authorities constituted under  KLU  Order  or  Kerala
Wetland Act 2008 are the competent authority.   Nature of  the  land  cannot
be changed or converted by directing  changes  in  the  Basic  Tax  Register
which is maintained only for the purpose of   land  tax.
Section 18 cannot be made use or the same cannot  be  taken  as  a
means to effect conversion  of  the  nature  of  the  land  bye-passing  the
competent authority and the procedure stipulated under the KLU  Order,  1967
and the Kerala Wetland Act, 2008 and the impugned  judgment  is   liable  to
be set aside.
The respondents in all the appeals are directed to approach  the
competent authorities constituted under KLU Order  1967/Kerala  Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 as the case may be for conversion of  the
land2015 S.C. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)