IMPORTANT POINT
Properties unfit for paddy cultivation cannot be labeled paddy land; suitability as of the enactment date is pivotal.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

The petitioners, eight in numbers, have approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of the applications submitted by them in Form 5 of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘Paddy Land Rules) for removing the properties of the petitioners from the data bank prepared under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Paddy Land Act’). Exhibits P39 and P40 are the orders impugned in this writ petition. The said orders are passed after a series of litigations.

2. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the husband and wife, the 3^rd and 6^th petitioners are the sons of the 4^th respondent who is the brother of the 1^st petitioner. 5^th petitioner is the wife of 4^th petitioner. Petitioners 7 and 8 are the wife and daughter of the another brother of the 1^st petitioner. According to the petitioners, all of them were residing together in an old residential house at Thoppumpady, Ernakulam, as a joint family. Later, as they decided to have separate residence on their own, they have purchased the properties situated in Rameswaram Village as per Ext.P3 to P10 sale deed.

3. According to the petitioners before purchasing the said properties, they verified the land records and found that, as per the land register maintained at Krishi Bhavan, Vyttila, those properties are described as (till now lying as purayidom). Exhibit P2 is the copy of the relevant page of the land register. In the data bank published under the provisions of Paddy Land Act also, the entry of this property is described as Exhibit P2 is the data bank published in this regard.

4. However, as the property was described as ‘Nilam’ in the revenue records, the petitioners submitted Form 6 application before the 1^st respondent under section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, seeking conversion of the properties in the revenue records. However, the 1^st respondent refused to accept the said applications on the ground that, as the properties are referred to in the data bank, unless an application in Form 5 is filed and properties are removed from the data bank, the application in Form 6, cannot be considered. This compelled the petitioners 1 to 3 to approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.21365/2021 challenging the above stand.

5. As per Ext.P16 judgment, this Court found that, filing of Form 5 application is necessary and accordingly the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioners submit applications in Form 5 within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment, the said application shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon within two months, taking note of the fact that the property stands included in the Data Bank as ‘purayidam’. It was also observed in Ext.P16 judgment that, in view of the fact that, the entry in the Data Bank is neither as a paddy land nor as a wetland, it prima facie appears that the petitioners would be entitled to an order deleting the property from the Data Bank. Based on the finding in Ext.P16, the petitioners 1 to 3 submitted Ext.P17 series of applications in Form 5 before the 1^st respondent on 25.11.2021. The other petitioners have also submitted Exts.P18, P19 , P20, P21 and P22 which are the applications in Form 5. As Exts.P18 to P22 applications were not being considered within a reasonable time, the petitioners 4 to 8 submitted WP(C) No.7354/2022 before this court, which was disposed of as per Ext.P23 judgment, wherein, a direction was issued to the 1^st respondent to consider Form 5 applications as well as Form