The Revenue Divisional Officer must confine inquiries under the Paddy Land Act to specified matters, ensuring legality in decisions regarding property classification.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 8.3 Ares comprised in Re-Survey No. 191/2-1 (Old Survey No. 43/3/1) of Block No. 14 of Chengalam South Village. The case of the petitioner is that, even though the property of the petitioner was never included in the Data Bank, either as paddy land or wetland, the property continued as paddy land in the revenue records.

2. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application in Form 6 for changing the classification of the property as ‘Purayidom’. However, the said application was rejected as per Ext.P14 order passed by the 2^nd respondent. Ext.P14 order was passed, acting upon the report of the village ofÏcer and the LLMC, to the effect that the property of the petitioner ought to have been included in the Data Bank,but it was omitted to be included therein. Therefore, recommendations were made in the said report to include the said property in the Data Bank. While rejecting the petitioner’s application in Form 6, the 2^nd respondent directed the Agriculture OfÏcer concerned to include the property of the petitioner in the Data Bank. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, challenging Ext.P14 order.

3. Heard Adv. Saritha Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Amminikutty, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The main challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P14 order is on the ground that, the sole reason on which the application in Form 6 rejected was that, as per the reports of LLMC as well as the Village OfÏcer, the property ought to have been included in the Data Bank. A direction was also issued to the Agriculture OfÏcer to include the property in the Data Bank as well. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the same is beyond the scope of an inquiry contemplated under Sec.27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (herein after referred to as ‘Paddy Land Act’. Moreover, he also placed reliance upon Manoharan K. v. District Collector Kannur , wherein it was held that the inclusion of a property in the Data Bank which was not originally included therein, cannot be ordered unless a specific notice in this regard is issued to the petitioner.

5. After perusing the entire records and relevant statutory provisions in this regard, I find merits in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As far as the inquiry conducted under Sec.27A of the Paddy Land Act is concerned, the same is confined to the questions as to whether the reclamation of the property would have any impact upon the neighbouring paddy lands or will it cause any disruption to the free water flow of the water to the neighbouring paddy land. Subsections 2 and 4 of Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act are relevant in this regard, which reads as follows:

“ 27A……

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the Revenue Divisional OfÏcer may, after considering the reports of the Village ofÏcer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and proper on such applications, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary.

Provided that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.1.Ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures.

…………

(4) If any application is allowed, the Revenue Divisional OfÏcer shall ensure that the reclamation of the unnotified land shall not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or other crops,