This is a complcated case. When the companies challenged the order before the court, the single judge had directed the companies to approach the local level monitoring committee (LLMC) to modify its order. The court said that until the data bank was finalised, the same had to be relied upon by the authorities.
Did you know that earlier owners of the land had submitted an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Land Utilization order to exclude the lands from the category of paddy land. The RDO had issued an order saying that the lands were not paddy fields.
Yes the comment above mine is right. However, the Land Revenue Commissioner had set aside the RDO’s order when it was challenged by the Karshaka Sanghom. The Land Revenue Commissioner had confirmed that the lands were actually paddy fields, on the basis of a report of the agriculture officer.
The issue was that according to the petitioner, the three companies had purchased 11.65 acres, 11.65 acres and 3.96 acres respectively at Kizhakambalam, for constructing multi-storied buildings. Although the sites were dry land, it had been described in the documents as paddy land.
Here is the info you are looking for :The Bench comprised of acting Chief Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice A.M. Shaffique passed the judgment on a petition filed by Adani Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited, Adani Landscape Private Limited and Aaloka Real Estate Private Limited.
Yeah, Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Adani Infrastructure and Developers Private Limited and its two sister companies against a single judge’s directive to approach the local level monitoring committee to modify its action in including their land at Kizhakambalam in the draft land data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.