Incorrect categorization of fallow land as paddy land under relevant state law.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 4.5 Ares of land in Survey No.86/1-41 of Pattambi Village in Palakkad District. The petitioner states that the afore referred property came to be included in the data bank as a Paddy land, incorrectly. Therefore, an application in Form 5 for removing the property from the data bank was instituted before the 3^rd respondent herein. By the impugned order at Ext.P5, the prayer of the petitioner came to be rejected solely for the reason that the property does not appear to have been converted earlier to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetlands Act , 2008 with reference to the report of the KSREC.

2. Heard Sri.Ashwin Sunilkumar representing Sri.Avaneesh Koyikkara, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Jibu, the learned Government Pleader.

3. This Court on a perusal of Ext.P6, notices that it was only during the year 1967 the property was observed as paddy land. As regards the year 2006, the report of the KSREC states that the property was a 'fallow land' and during the year 2010, the property was seen under scattered vegetation with building / structures on three sides. Therefore, at least in the year 2006, the property was a fallow land. This Court in Joy K.K. vs Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KHC 540) has categorically found that if the natural features of the land is not fit for cultivation, certainly land has to be excluded from databank. In such circumstances, merely because a property is shown as a fallow land in the year 2006, that by itself, would not require the inclusion of the same in the data bank. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at while issuing the impugned order at Ext.P5 does not appear to be correct.

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition setting aside Ext.P5 and direct the 3^rd respondent or the authorised officer to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 Form 5 application filed by the petitioner afresh, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Accordingly, this writ petition would stand allowed.

Sd/-