The authority to cancel a property classification order under the Paddy Land Act requires evidence of non-compliance with conditions; mere inclusion in the Data Bank as reclaimed land does not equate to paddy or wetland.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner and his brother are the co-owners of the property having a total extent of 38.68 Ares comprised in Sy Nos. 87/1-15, 87/1-16 and 87/1-17 of Thripangode Village in Tirur Taluk. Out of the total extent of the land, 26.92 Ares are described in the Basic Tax Register maintained by the Revenue Department as “Nilam”. In the Data Bank the said property is shown as the property “reclaimed 11 years ago”. The petitioner submitted an application in Form 7 to classify the property as Purayidam.

2. Acting upon the said application, the respondent passed Ext.P3 order by allowing the same. As part of processing the said application, an amount of Rs.2,90,736/- was collected from the petitioner as conversion fee and 10% of the property was set apart for water conservancy measures as well.

3. Later, certain complaints claimed to have been received by the respondent, and Ext.P6 order was passed by the respondent, by recalling Ext.P3 order. The reason mentioned in Ext.P6 is that, when the documents were scrutinized it was noticed that the property of the petitioner is included in the Data Bank and therefore, it is not an “unnotified land” as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Paddy Land Act'). In the meantime, as the property was described as reclaimed land in the Data Bank, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 Form 5 application as well, which is now pending consideration. The petitioner submitted an appeal against Ext.P6 order, but it is asserted that the petitioner has submitted the said appeal by way of abundant caution and, in fact, no appeal is contemplated against Ext.P6 as per the provisions contained in the Paddy Land Act. Later the Ext.P9 order was passed by rejecting the Ext.P2 Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances seeking the following reliefs.

“i. Call for the records relating to Ext.P9 order of the Respondent Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur and to quash the same order by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writs, Orders or Directions.

ii. Call for the records relating to Ext.P6 order of the Respondent Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur and to quash the same order by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writs, Orders or Directions.

iii. Declare that the Respondent RDO is not vested with any power to cancel Ext. P3 earlier order for the reasons stated in Exts. P6 and P9 orders, except on the reason of violation of conditions, if any, imposed in the order issued under S. 27 A of Act 28 of 2008.

iv. Declare that the property of the petitioner having an extent of 26.92 Ares, comprised in Survey Nos.87/1-15, 87/1-16 and 87/1-17 of Thripangode Village in Tirur Taluk in Malappuram District is dry/garden land, having all the characterisation of Purayidam, and that in light of earlier Ext. P3 order, and the remarks shown in Ext. P1 Data Bank, the Petitioner’s property is liable to be excluded from the Data Bank.

v. Issue such other and further writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. vi. Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.”

4. A counter affidavit is submitted by the respondent, reiterating the stand taken in Exts.P6 and P9 orders and praying for rejection of the writ petition.

5. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner in response to the averments contained in the counter affidavit.

6. Heard, Sri.K.J Mohammed Anzar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Renjith.S, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.

7. One of the main grounds raised by the petitioner for challenging Ext.P6 order is that, as per the provisions contained in the Paddy Land Act, there is no provision that enables the respondent to cancel the order passed under Section 27A (2) of the Paddy Land Act. It was pointed out that, on issuing