Administrative bodies must consider scientific data and factual context when making classifications under conservation laws to ensure equitable treatment.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of September, 2021 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Ext.P5 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get removed 42.65 sq.m. of property in old Sy.No.425/4, Re.Sy.No.537/3, 537/5 of Eraviperoor Village from the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008.

2. According to the petitioner, the land owned by him is neither a paddy land or a wetland, though the land is so described in the Data Bank. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application before the 3rd respondent– Revenue Divisional Officer invoking the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 seeking to make necessary changes in the Data Bank entries. The petitioner would submit that there was a building situated in the property much earlier to the coming into force of the Act, 2008. Without considering the actual situation, the 3rd respondent has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is bad for non application of mind. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further point out that the 3rd respondent has not consider even Ext.P6 report submitted by the Agricultural Officer.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents

1 to 8 and 10.

4. The petitioner has a specific case that the land was converted much before the commencement of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. There is an existing building in the land also. It is without considering these aspects that the 3rd respondent has passed Ext.P5. A perusal of Ext.P5 would show that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not considered any scientific data for arriving at the conclusion. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner, it is necessary that the Revenue Divisional Officer consider the issue afresh after obtaining scientific data from the KSREC, in the interest of justice.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make application for obtaining scientific data from the KSREC paying requisite fee. If the petitioner makes such application, the 3rd respondent– Revenue Divisional Officer will reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner taking into consideration the report obtained from the KSREC and also considering the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. The 3rd respondent–Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a report from the KSREC as directed above. To enable the 3rd respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh as stated above, Ext.P5 order is set aside.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd/06.09.2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7524/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1461 OF

2011 OF SRO DATED 11.5.2011 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.5.2020 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERAVIPEROOR TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER NO.A2- 1888/14 DATED 25.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE

9TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.17486 OF 2020 DATED 23.11.2020 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-

2443/2020 DATED 22.2.2021 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ERAVIPEROOR, NO KBEVR2/2020-21 DATED 29.12.2020