TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 2138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leader Shri. C.E. Unnikrishnan Spl. G.P To A.G, Sri. V.M. Krishnakumar Smt. P.R. Reena Sri. Renjith Thampan (Sr.), By Advs. Sri. V.M. Krishnakumar Smt. P.R. Reena For the Respondent : Adv V M Krishnakumar, Adv Renjith Rajappan, By Advs. Shri. C.E. Unnikrishnan Spl. G.P To A.G, Spl Gp C E Unnikrishnan JUDGMENT As all these three writ appeals involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. 2. WA No. 1691 of 2023 arises from the judgment dated 09.08.2023 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.16781 of 2023. WA No.1441 of 2025 arises from the order dated 19.11.2024 of another learned Single Judge in RP No.356 of 2024 whereby he dismissed the review petition preferred against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dustrial purposes. By virtue of the exemption granted under Section 81(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act by the State Government, therefore, the writ petitioner was obliged to use the land for commercial/industrial purposes as a condition for retaining the exemption from the ceiling provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 6. It is against the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that, in these appeals, we are called upon to consider the legality of the actions of the authorities under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the '2008 Act') in issuing stop memos and prohibitory orders against the writ petitioner, based solely on a complaint received by the said authority, that the writ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Ext. P26 is therefore set aside." 7. On the other hand, WP(C) No. 20159 of 2023, that was preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 13.06.2023 of the Revenue Divisional Officer as also the notice dated 15.06.2023 issued by the Tahsildar prohibiting any activity in 1.84 Acres of land owned by the petitioner, was disposed by another learned Single Judge, who took note of the judgment dated 09.08.2023 in WP(C) No.16781 of 2023 and found that the revenue authorities were entitled to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 27A of the 2008 Act against filling activities that were being carried out on lands not covered by specific permission orders under the KLUO. The writ petition wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Act, is with a specific condition that the exemption will enure to him only so long as he utilises the land for the specific purposes, for which the exemption is granted. The exemption granted in respect of 24.5 Acres of land, mandates that the land in question must be used for commercial/industrial purposes and not for any other purpose. This would mean that if the writ petitioner decides to use the land for any other purpose, he would stand to lose the benefit of the exemption granted by the Government from the ceiling provisions under the Land Reforms Act. Under such circumstances, we fail to see how the authorities under the 2008 Act can insist on the writ petitioner maintaining his land in the same state without altering its nature i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot apply. It is only because in the instant case, the writ petitioner is obliged, as a condition for retaining the benefit of the exemption under the KLR Act, to carry out activities on his land that might militate against the objects of the 2008 Act, that we have chosen to harmoniously interpret the provisions of the two enactments as above. 11. The upshot of the above discussion is that, we find that in the peculiar circumstances of these cases, the object behind the grant of exemption under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, does not align with the object of the provisions of the 2008 Act, and a harmonious reading of both the statutes would necessitate our deeming the grant of an exemption in terms of Section 10 of the 2008 Act. Accordingly....