Property classification in the Data Bank under the Paddy Land Act determines legal proceedings effectiveness.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 1 Hectare 1 Are

09 sq.meters of land in Survey Nos.222/12 and 222/14 in Block No.30 of Anickadu Village. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P10 order passed by the 1^st respondent, under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, (hereinafter called the Paddy Land Act, 2008), directing the petitioner to restore the property of the petitioner by converting the same as wet land. Ext.P10 order was passed on the premise that the petitioner had illegally converted the property, which is a wet land as per the records and therefore, the proceedings under of the Paddy Land Act, 2008 is warranted. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Ext.P10.

2. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. In the said statement, it is averred that the property is not included in the Data Bank. However, as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the property is a wet land and it is to be included in the Data Bank. It is also mentioned that, in the KSREC report also the land is shown as fallow land.

3. Heard Sri.Athul V.Vadakkedom, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Deepa V., learned Government Pleader.

4. One of the crucial contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as it is an admitted position that the property of the petitioner has not been included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act, 2008, the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act cannot be initiated. On going through the statutory stipulations contained in of the Act, it is evident that the proceedings under the said provision is contemplated at the instance of the District Collector, 1^st respondent herein, in respect of the property which is a “paddy land” or “wet land”. In order to treat the property as a paddy land or wet land, it has to be included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act, 2008. In this case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an admitted position that the property is not included in the Data Bank either as paddy land or as wet land. Even though there is a contention that the property has to be included in the Data Bank, the fact remains that, as of now the same is a land which is not included therein.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further brought the attention of this Court to Ext.P3 tax receipt as well, wherein the property of the petitioner has been described as ‘purayidom’, which is as per the entries in the BTR. However, it is averred in the statement submitted on behalf of the 1^st respondent that, as per the old BTR, the property is shown as ‘Nilam’. Any how, since the property of the petitioner has not been included in the Data Bank by describing it as paddy land or wet land, this Court need not go into that controversy. This is particularly because, to enable the 1^st respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 13 of the Paddy Land Act, 2008, one of the mandatory requirements is that it should be a paddy land or wet land, which has to be understood as a property included in the Data Bank, as paddy land or wet land. Since the property has not been included in the Data Bank as such, Ext.P10 proceedings are not legally sustainable.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P10, holding that the same is not legally tenable in view of the fact that the property is not included in the Data Bank as paddy land or wet land.

Sd/-