Court found the order to remove soil from property unjustified due to lack of consideration of pertinent facts.

J U D G M E N T

(Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2025)

The writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P8 order whereby, the petitioner is directed to remove the 2090 meter square of soil from the petitioner’s property and to realize its cost from the petitioner to revenue recovery.

2. It is a case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is the owner of 27.13 Ares of property comprised in Survey Nos. 23/8, 23/7-2 and 23/7-1 of pathanamthitta Village. The property was purchased as per Ext.P1 sale deed. The description of the property in the revenue records is ‘Karanilam’. It is also contended by the petitioner that, to the knowledge of the petitioner, the property had never been under cultivation of paddy. It is further stated that, there was a ditch on the (backside) western side of the property and the petitioner levelled the same with soil collected from the rest of the land. He also brought two loads of ordinary soil in a lorry for that purpose. While doing so, the 4^th respondent issued stop memo which restrained the petitioner from levelling the property. The petitioner was directed to appear before the 1^st respondent by Ext.P5.

3. In response to that, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 explanation. Without considering the same, Ext.P8 order was issued. The matter was pending from 2016. In the meanwhile, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader produced instructions received from the 2^nd respondent wherein it is stated that, earlier the properties mentioned in the writ petition was part of the data bank. However, on 17.02.2021 through a Gazette Publication No. 791 as per serial No.72, those properties are removed from the data bank and the properties still remained in higher plain than the other paddy fields surrounded and some trees are existing there which are 15 years of age.

4. On considering the contentions across the Bar and on assessing the facts in issue, it appears that Ext.P8 order issued by the Revenue Divisional OfÏcer was without taking into consideration the real facts involved in this issue. Under such circumstances, Ext.P8 order is set aside.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

Sd/-

P.M. MANOJ JUDGE AKH APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24025/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO

193/2011 OF PATHANAMTHITTA SRO EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 1578/05 OF PATHANAMTHITTA SRO EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO NUMBER

6/15 DATED 23/1/15 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

27/6/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF EXT P6 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBER K DIS-

1474/2015/B4 DATED 5/7/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO ISSUED HIM A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18/7/2016 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED

18/7/2016