Kerala High Court Dismisses Writ Petition, Directs Petitioner to Seek Alternative Remedy
Writ Petition Challenging Revenue Divisional Officer's Order Deemed Non-Maintainable Due to Available Appeal Process
In a notable decision, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Viju Abraham, has dismissed a writ petition filed by Farhana Latheef, challenging an order by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The court ruled that the petitioner must avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 27B of the Act, thereby deeming the writ petition non-maintainable.
The petitioner, Farhana Latheef, had sought to challenge the Revenue Divisional Officer’s decision to reject her application for changing the nature of an un-notified land. Latheef's application, submitted in Form 9 under Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, was aimed at reclassifying her property, which was recorded as paddy land in the Basic Tax Register despite not being included in the local data bank as paddy land.
The Revenue Divisional Officer's rejection of the application led Latheef to seek relief through a writ petition. However, the court found that the appropriate course of action was to file an appeal with the District Collector, as provided under Section 27B of the Act. The judgment emphasized that the statutory appeal process is the correct legal recourse and must be exhausted before approaching the High Court.
In its analysis, the court referred to the provisions of Sections 27A and 27B of the Act, noting that the Revenue Divisional Officer is empowered to make decisions regarding land reclassification, provided such decisions do not disrupt water flow to neighboring paddy lands. The court also clarified that any order passed under Section 27A(2) is subject to appeal under Section 27B, a provision that had not been utilized by the petitioner.
The court cited the case of Sakeer Hussain v. State of Kerala, which highlighted the necessity of exhausting appellate remedies as per statutory requirements. In light of this, the court concluded that the writ petition was premature and directed Latheef to file an appeal with the District Collector within three weeks.
Justice Abraham’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory processes and reinforces the principle that writ petitions should not be used to circumvent available appeals. The judgment serves as a reminder of the structured legal pathways that must be followed in administrative law matters.
Bottom Line:
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - An order passed under Section 27A(2) of the Act is appealable under Section 27B of the said Act. Writ petition challenging such an order is not maintainable when an alternate remedy by way of appeal is available.
Statutory provision(s): Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Sections 27A(2), 27B
Farhana Latheef v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2781431
