AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 196 wordsSathish Ninan, J
Holding that the petitioners have illegally reclaimed paddy land, the second respondent passed an order in terms of Section 13 of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act directing restoration of the property. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P5
revision before the first respondent in terms of Section 28 of the Act and the same is pending consideration. The grievance of the petitioners is that,
pending consideration of the statutory revision, steps are being taken for enforcement of the order for restoration.
The revision has been filed in March 2021. It would be sufficient if the revision itself is heard and disposed of and in the meanwhile status quo is
maintained regarding the nature of the property. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass
appropriate orders on Ext.P5 revision after hearing the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are so passed, status quo shall be maintained in respect of the property, including its lie and
nature.