The court emphasized the need for scientific evaluation of land classification under conservation laws.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1 s t day of August, 2024 The above writ petition is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by issuance of Exts.P13 and P14 orders invoking powers under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act, 2008) directing to restore the nature of land and remove the compound wall to restore the natural flow of water and declined the revision preferred against the said order.

2. It is stated that the petitioner along with his wife is in possession and enjoyment of 10.53 ares of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.106/11 of Malayankeezhu Village by virtue of document No.1462/10 of Malayankeezhu Sub Registry. The property referred in the sale deed was stated to be reclaimed paddy field 30 years back. There are coconut trees which are nearly 25 years old and other trees like Anjili, Mahagani, Arecanut and rubber having similar life span. It is also contended that the entire area are at present virtually garden land and there is no paddy cultivation. The relevant portion in data bank is produced as Ext.P6 in order to show that the nature of land prescribed is, “ cultivated with coconut”.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in this background, the 4^th respondent initiated proceedings by invoking Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . It is on the basis of a complaint by late Smt.Sarojini Amma that the farmers in the locality including her were unable to continue with their paddy cultivation as the petitioner had obstructed the natural flow of the water while reclaiming his property. Smt.Sarojini Amma, the mother of the 10^th and 11^th respondents, had approached this Court by preferring W.P. (C) No.2763/2013 alleging that her complaints before the statutory authority against the purported reclamation by the petitioner was not responded to. By judgment dated 30.06.2013, this Court directed the District Collector to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the representation submitted by her.

4. After the demise of Smt.Sarojini Amma, her sons, on whom the said properties were derived upon and who are not indulged in any paddy cultivation, now proceeding against the petitioner.

5. Even in the data bank prepared for that area, the property in Sy.No.106/12 owned by respondents 10 and 11 are cultivated with plantain. These factors were brought before the 4^th respondent. Despite consideration of these factors, it is informed by the 7^th respondent Village Officer that the District Collector has passed an order No.B16- 16845/2013 dated 29.05.2013 directing the petitioner to permit the free flow of water by removing the soil which is allegedly used for reclaiming the property within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the communication by the 7^th respondent. At that point of time, it is stated that the petitioner was not served with the order of the District Collector. On knowing the issuance of order dated 29.05.2013, the petitioner had preferred a revision before the 1^st respondent on 24.08.2013 under Section 28 of the Act, 2008 even prior to obtaining the certified copy of the order passed by the District Collector.

6. It is stated that such a step was taken on the premise that the order dated 29.05.2013 will be implemented with immediate effect. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has also preferred W.P.(C) No.22740/2013 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 24.09.2013 with a direction to dispose of the revision petition preferred by the petitioner as per Ext.P11 and further directed to maintain status quo. Later, the petitioner obtained a copy of the order dated 29.05.2013, which is pro