The District Collector must consider all relevant evidence before passing orders affecting property rights under conservation laws.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing Exhibit P4 stop memo and Exhibit P6 order passed by the respondents.

ii) to grant such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to grant.” (SIC)

2. The petitioner obtained an extent of 8.92 Ares of property in Re.Sy. No.86/3 of Block No.4 in Oachira Village by virtue of Sale Deed No.678/1986 of Oachira SRO is the submission. By virtue of Ext.P1, the petitioner obtained a total of 54 cents of property along with ‘vadavuvasi’. Out of the said property, some portion of the properties were disposed and the property that remain unsold which is in the exclusive ownership and possession of the petitioner is 8.92 Ares. The petitioner is paying land tax for the said property and in all the revenue records, the property is described as ‘purayidam’ is the submission. The said property is lying as a dry land for the past more than 60 years is the further submission. From Exts.P1, P2 and P3, it is evident that the above property is shown as ‘purayidam’ is the submission. According to the petitioner, the property has never been included in the Data Bank since the nature of the above said property was that of dry land and was mentioned as ‘purayidam’ in all the relevant records. It is also submitted that the property of the petitioner was a bit low lying land and water used to get flooded during huge rainy seasons. Thus the petitioner decided to increase the height of the land by filling soil at the low-lying area of the said property is the submission.

3. On 15.10.2022, the petitioner made necessary arrangements for filling up soil on the above said property is the further submission. At that stage, the petitioner received a stop memo from the Village Officer, Oachira, asking her to stop filling soil in the said land. In Ext.P4 stop memo, it is mentioned that, though as per the revenue records, the name of the said property is mentioned as ‘purayidam’, but as per the settlement register, the 20 cents of property comprised in old Sy. No.13240 is categorized as ‘nilam’. It is further mentioned in Ext.P4 that the property is lying as a wetland and the act of the petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of Kerala Wetland and Paddy Conservation Act . Thereafter, on 15.11.2022, the petitioner received a notice under Sections 13 and 20 of the Kerala Wetland and Paddy Conservation Act from the 2^nd respondent intimating her to be present for a hearing on 23.11.2022. The 2^nd respondent without adverting to the actual facts and circumstances involved in the case, passed the impugned order as evident by Ext.P6. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

4. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5. The short point raised by the petitioner is that, as per Ext.P2 tax receipt, the petitioner’s property is shown as ‘purayidam’. The petitioner also relied Ext.P3, the extract of the BTR, in which also it is stated that the property is mentioned as ‘purayidam’. It is also submitted that, admittedly the property is not included in the Data Bank. In such circumstances, these aspects were not considered by the District Collector while passing Ext.P6 order is the submission. I think, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner also relied the dictum laid down by this Court in Indira P.S. and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another [ 2020 (4) KHC 33 ).

6. The Government Pleader submitted that a statement is filed by the respondents. This Court perused the same. I don’t want to make any observation abou