Confusion over land data bank inclusion necessitates reconsideration of prior orders under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" A. Quash Ext P8 and Ext P1 orders passed by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents respectively."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P8 and P1 orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3, respectively. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner in possession of landed property measuring 10.93 Ares, situated in Block No.2, Re.Sy.No.566/5 of Clappana Village, Karunagappally Taluk. It is submitted that the property was acquired by the petitioner from a larger extent of 37.40 Ares belonging to his late father, Mr Muhammed Kunju, through Sale Deed No.2682/98 dated 20.08.1998, registered at the Oachira Sub-Registrar’s Office. The 2nd respondent by Ext.P8 order, confirmed Ext.P1 order of the 3rd respondent, directing to remove the soil alleged to be deposited in his property, converting the alleged paddy land into dry land, under the supervision of the 3^rd respondent, is the submission. Initially Ext.P1 order was passed directing to remove the soil deposited illegally in the said property within seven days from the date of receipt of the said order, and in default, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Kollam and Addl.Tahsildar, Karunagappally were directed to implement the order with the assistance of the Secretary, Clappana Grama Panchayat. The 3^rd respondent, as per Ext.P1 had also seized a Tipper lorry alleged to be used for conversion of land and the said vehicles are ordered to be released only upon payment of money is the submission. When the confiscation and seizure of vehicles were challenged by their respective owners before the Addl.District Court, Kollam, in appeal, the said court vide Ext.P4 order held that the subject property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and also held that the finding of the District Collector that the property was reclaimed unlawfully is not sustainable, is the submission of the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent, without properly considering Exts.P2 and P3 produced along with the revision petition, to show that the property is not included in the data bank under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and Rules, 2008, illegally passed Ext.P8 order is the further submission. According to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent ought to have found that as per reports of statutory authorities, the land was converted 15 years ago and therefore the provisions of Paddy Land Act is not attracted to the subject property and therefore Ext.P1 order was wrong. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.

4. A short point raised by the petitioner is that, as on the date of passing Ext.P1 order, the property is not included in the data bank. This Court perused Ext.P8 order passed by the Government, in the revision filed by the petitioner. This Court perused the same. It will be better to extract paragraph No.8 of that order:

" 8. സർക്കാർ ഇക്കാര്യം വിശദമായി പരിശശാധിച്ചു. ശമൽ സൂചിപ്പിച്ച മമാഴികൾ പരിശശാധിച്ചതിൻപ്രകാരം മകാല്ലം ജില്ലയിൽ കരുനാഗപ്പള്ളി താലൂക്ക് ക്ലാപ്പന വിശല്ലജിമ, റീ.സ.566/5-ൽ ഉൾമപ്പട്ട 37.40 ആർസ് ഭൂമിയിൽ 2008-മ, ശകരള മനൽ വയൽ തണ്ണീർത്തട സംരക്ഷണ നിയമപ്രകാരം തയ്യാറാശക്കണ്ട ഡാറ്റാ ബാങ്കിൽ ഉൾമപ്പശടണ്ട ഭൂമിയാമണന്നു വിശല്ലജ് ഓഫീസറുമട പക്കൽ ഉള്ള ഡാറ്റാ ബാങ്കിൽ പ്രസ്തുത സ്ഥ,ം ഉൾമപ്പടുകയും കൃഷി ഓഫീസർ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണത്തിനു നൽകിയ ഡാറ്റാ ബാങ്കിൽ നിന്നും പ്രസ്തുത സ്ഥ,ം ഒഴിവാക്കിയത് ഗുതുത,മായ വീഴ്ചയായും ആയതിനാൽ നടപടികൾ കൈകമക്കാള്ളണമമന്ന നിർശZശം നൽകിമകാണ്ടും പ്രസ്തുത സ്ഥ,ം അനധികൃതമായി നികത്തി എന്ന് ശബാധ്യമപ്പട്ട തിനാൽ അനധികൃതമായി നിശക്ഷപിച്ച മണ്ണ് നീക്കം മചയ്ത് പൂർവ്വ സ്ഥിതിയി,ാക്കുന്നതിനും പ്രവൃത്തി ജില്ലാ കളക്ടർ ശനരിട്ട് ശമൽശനാട്ടം വഹിച്ച് നടശത്തണ്ടതും ഇപ്രകാരം നീക്കംമചയ്യുന്ന മണ്ണ് മപാതുമരാമത്ത് പണികൾക്കായി കൈകമാശറണ്