Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
Manoharan K., S/o. Anandan – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Kannur, - Respondent
WP(C) No. 21698 of 2023
Decided on : 20-06-2024
NATURAL JUSTICE - KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT - Rule 4(5), Rule 4(6), Rule 4(4e) - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative actions, particularly when such actions have civil consequences. It ruled that the inclusion of property in the databank as a wetland without notice to the owner violated procedural fairness, necessitating a hearing before any decision affecting the owner's rights could be made.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, owner of a property in Kannur District, sought permission to change the use of his land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. His application was rejected by the RDO based on a decision by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) to classify the property as wetland, despite the petitioner arguing that the property was not paddy land and had coconut trees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the RDO's decision ignored the Village Officer's report and relied on an unauthorized report from the Agricultural Officer. It ruled that the inclusion of the property in the databank without notice to the petitioner violated principles of natural justice, which require a hearing before such decisions are made.
Issues: Whether the inclusion of the petitioner's property in the wetland databank without notice and a hearing violated the principles of natural justice and affected the petitioner's civil rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that administrative actions with civil consequences must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing. The lack of notice and opportunity to contest the inclusion of the property in the databank rendered the decision invalid.
Final Decision: The court quashed the RDO's order and the LLMC's decision to include the property in the databank, mandating that the LLMC must provide notice and a hearing to the petitioner before making any further decisions regarding the property.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the property comprised in Survey No.2/193 of Chokli Village in Kannur District covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The property was not included in the databank. The petitioner preferred Ext.P2 application under Form 6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008, (for short' the Act and the Rules')seeking permission for a change of user of the property.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 report submitted by the Village Officer along with a sketch clearly shows that there was no paddy land near the petitioner's property and that, the petitioner's property had coconut trees and other improvements. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) had, again called for a report from the Village Officer who then reported that the property was surrounded by mangroves. By Ext.P9, the RDO rejected the application preferred under Form 6 holding that the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) had taken a decision, as per Ext.P13, to include the property as a wetland in the databank. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order passed by the RDO under Form 6 on the ground that, none of the requirements needed for including the property as a 'wetland' arises in this case. He also submits that, at any rate, the decision of the LLMC, as seen from Ext.P13, to include the property in the databank is passed without hearing the petitioner and the inclusion of the property after it was not included earlier in the published databank, affects the proprietary rights of the petitioner. The factual positions were also not considered while passing Ext.P9 order as the reports of the revenue officials clearly show that there were no paddy fields near the property and there was no chance of the change of user affecting the water flow to nearby paddy fields. Ext.P12 report obtained from the Agricultural Officer was totally without jurisdiction as he had no authority to file a report in a case where the finding was that the subject property should be treated as a wetland.
3. The Government has filed a counter in which it is stated that the Village Officer found that the land was recently filled up and that the adjacent properties were wetlands apart from the existence of mangroves near the property. The matter was referred to the Agricultural Officer for getting the remarks of the LLMC on the points suggested by the Village Officer. The Agricultural Officer submitted a report on 15.12.2021 stating that the LLMC had inspected the property and found that the southern and western sides of the property were filled with mangroves and the said fields are marshy lands and that, the conversion of the land in question would adversely affect the ecological system of the nearby mangrove fields and hence, the LLMC decided to include the subject land in the databank as a wetland.
4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the LLMC was within its power to include the property in the databank under Rule 4(5) of the Act and the Rules. The learned Government Pleader also argues that under Rule 4(6) there is a remedy to the petitioner for moving the LLMC within 90 days from the publication of the databank.
5. Heard Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Amminikutty K., Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
6. After having heard the learned counsel on either side, it is to be noted that Ext.P9 was passed ignoring the earlier report of the Village Officer and relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who under the Rules was not entitled to file a report as far as for inclusion of the property as a 'wetland' as per Rule 4(4e) of the Rules which reads as follows:
The inclusion of property in a databank with civil consequences requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing, regardless of statutory provisions that may not ....
The inclusion of property in the Data Bank without notice violates natural justice principles, affecting the owner's rights.
The classification of land as 'paddy or wetland' must be based on independent assessment and actual conditions, not solely on subordinate reports or revenue records.
The Authorised Officer lacks jurisdiction to dictate the inclusion of land in the data bank without due process under the relevant Act and Rules.
The authority to include land in the data bank solely resides with the Local Level Monitoring Committee, not the Revenue Divisional Officer.
The authorized officer must assess land suitability for paddy cultivation before making decisions on data bank inclusion.
Merely having water logging does not qualify land as wetland; an independent assessment of land characteristics is required under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The authorized officer must consider suitability for paddy cultivation and binding legal precedents when determining land classification, ensuring compliance with judicial directives during inspectio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
