Point of Law: If the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is allowed to stand, it will interfere with the constitutional right of the petitioner to freely enjoy the land, which in turn will be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, urged the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. The petitioner, who is owner of 5.6 Ares of property in Malayankeezhu Village, is challenging Ext.P6 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nedumangad, whereby the petitioner’s request to change the nature of the petitioner’s land in revenue records stands rejected.

2. The petitioner owns 5.6 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey No. 252/10, Block No. 6 of Malayankeezhu Village, Kattakada Taluk of Thiruvananthapuram District. According to the petitioner, the land stood converted prior to the year 2008 when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was enacted. The land is presently in the nature of 'Purayidam'.

3. However, when a Data Bank of Paddy Land and Wetland was constituted under Section 5(4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the petitioner’s land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application in Form-5, invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

4. The petitioner’s Form-5 application has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P6 order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order. According to the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the petitioner’s application solely based on a report submitted by the Agricultural Officer. The petitioner submits that it is evident from the order that the Revenue Divisional Officer has neither made a Site inspection nor he has applied his mind in passing the impugned order.

5. The property of the petitioner lies in the nature of 'Purayidam'. Had the Revenue Divisional Officer harboured any doubt in this regard, he should have ordered to obtain scientific data as provided under Rule 4(4F) of the Rules, 2008 to ascertain the nature of the land as it stood in the year 2008, contended the petitioner. If the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is allowed to stand, it will interfere with the constitutional right of the petitioner to freely enjoy the land, which in turn will be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, urged the petitioner.

6. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. When the petitioner submitted Form-5 application to remove land from Data Bank, the Revenue Divisional Officer sought a report from the Agricultural Officer, who is the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee.

7. Based on the findings of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the Agricultural Officer submitted a Report dated 03.01.2022. The said Report was made on the basis of a Site inspection. The report specifically recommended that the land is not to be removed from the Data Bank as it would defeat the very purpose of the Act, 2008. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reason to unsettle the decision taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Government Pleader insisted.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

9. The petitioner owns 5.6 Ares of property comprised in Re-survey No. 252/10, Block No. 6 of Malayankeezhu Village, Kattakada Taluk of Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner’s land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application in Form-5.

10. The Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the Form-5 application as per Ext.P6. The stated reason for rejecting the petitioner’s Form-5 application is that there are “Neerchals” in the petitioner’s land and that the LLMC has decided not to recommend removal of the petitioner’s land from the Data Bank.

11. Both these reasons are not sufficient to reject the petitioner’s request to remove his land from the Data Bank. The reason that there are “Neerchals” in the land by itself is not a ground