Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 53025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 27TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 258 OF 2024 PETITIONER:
GIRIJA S NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS PUTHENPURAYIL, THALAYAR, KUTTOOR P.O, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689106 BY ADV UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT , GOVT. SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689545
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689101
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KUTTOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689106 OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
19.20 Ares of land comprised in Re.Sy No.90/15 of Kuttoor Village, Thiruvalla Taluk. According to the petitioner, the land is not a paddy land or wet land and the same was converted 30-35 years back and has been wrongly included data bank published by the 4th respondent as 'paddy land/wet land'. The petitioner, therefore, filed Ext.P2 application in Form- 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the 3rd respondent to exclude the said land from the data bank, after remitting requisite fees. Ext.P4 is the report of the KSREC which shows that the property of the petitioner is not a paddy land or wet land and was converted before 2008. Despite the report of the KSREC, the 3rd respondent, by Ext.P3, rejected Ext.P2 solely relying on the report of the 4th respondent. The petitioner submits that Ext.P3 order is vitiated by non-application of mind. The petitioner submits that there is no independent consideration of Ext.P2 application by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P3.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The relevant consideration for inclusion of the property as a paddy land or wet land is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2008). On a perusal of Ext.P3, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of the property as on the coming into force of the Act of 2008, the 3rd respondent has relied solely upon the report of the 4th respondent and refused to remove the property from the data bank. This Court has held in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] that, the Revenue Divisional Officer must, while considering an application for removal of a property from the data bank, consider whether the land in question was a paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. Reliance upon the report of the LLMC alone will not be sufficient while taking a decision.
4. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P3, with a direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application in Form No.5 and to take a decision in the matter after calling for the KSREC report at the expense of the petitioner and to take a final decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of.
