The court ruled that statutory procedures must be adhered to when altering land classifications under the Act, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining requisite reports to ensure lawful decision-making.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

W.P.(C).No.38444 of 2022

Petitioner is the owner and in possession of land having an extent of 161.45 Ares (398.94 cents) comprised in Survey Nos.403, 405 and 406 of Ayyanthole Village in Thrissur Taluk.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the land comprised in Survey Nos.403,405 and 406 were included as converted land in the draft data bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), Thrissur Municipal Corporation and the lands were converted much before the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act, 2008'). 50 cents of land comprised in Survey No.405 of Ayyanthole Village was permitted to be used for purposes other than paddy cultivation as per Ext P2 order, as per the provisions of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Later on, the data bank was finalised, and the property owned by the petitioner was included as paddy land notified in the final data bank. The Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) report was obtained in respect of the said land, as Ext P3 to P5, which revealed that the property had been converted before the coming into force of the Act, 2008. Since the properties were included in the data bank, the petitioner submitted an application in Form-5 and the same was directed to be considered as per Ext.P6 judgment. Thereupon, by Ext.P7 order, the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner was partially allowed, excluding the land comprised in Survey Nos.403 and 406 of Ayyanthole Village from the data bank. But as regards the property in Survey No.405, the 2nd respondent has not rejected or allowed the application, but took a stand that the property comprised in Survey No.405 is covered by an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The petitioner would submit that, in fact, the KLU permission obtained as per Ext.P2 is only in respect of 50 cents of land comprised in Survey No.405 of Ayyanthole Village, which was not taken into consideration while issuing Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 order was challenged to the extent that it denied consideration of the land covered in Survey No.405. While so, Ext.P8 stop memo was issued, to which Ext.P10 objection was filed, but the petitioner was informed by the Village Officer that the stop memo can be withdrawn only after the land in Survey No.405 of Ayyanthole Village is deleted from the data bank. The petitioner relies on Exts.P11 and P12 judgments in support of its contention. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 order and Ext.P8 stop memo, the petitioner approached this Court, filing W.P.(C) No.30405 of 2022 and the said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P13 judgment, directing the RDO to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner. In compliance with the direction issued by this Court, the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P14 order, excluded the property comprised in Survey No.405 of Ayyanthole Village from the data bank. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 27A of the Act,2008, for changing the nature of land comprised in Survey Nos.403, 405 and 406 of Ayyanthole Village, which was also allowed as per Ext.P15. While so, Ext.P16 was issued whereby proceedings were initiated as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, 2008. Taking into consideration the fact that the property comprised in Survey Nos.403, 405, and 406 of Ayyanthole Village has already been removed from the data bank, the petitioner submitted Ext.P17 request to drop all further proceedings initiated as per the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, 2008. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that,