The necessity of a fair hearing and proper evidence before administrative decisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P13 order issued under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), as well as Ext.P14 order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, on an application in Form 5, filed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

2. Heard Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.S.L.Sylaja, learned Government Pleader.

3. The challenge against Ext.P13 order issued by the District Collector, Kannur, is essentially on the basis of the allegation that such an order has been issued without hearing the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the statement in the order that the petitioner was also heard apart from the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer, was incorrect and for proving that, the petitioner had sought for certain details as regards the hearing carried out from the Public Information Officer attached to the office of District Collector, Kannur, as evidenced by Ext.P15. In reply, the learned counsel points out that Exts.P16 and 17 have been served on the petitioner, wherein there is only an endorsement in the files to the effect that ‘hearing has been concluded/conducted’. The further details sought for by the petitioner with specific reference to the hearing note prepared are stated to be not available in the files of the office. From this, I am of the opinion that the stand of the petitioner that he was not heard requires to be accepted.

4. As regards the findings contained in Ext.P14, this Court notices that the application in Form 5 has been rejected essentially on the basis of the allegation that certain properties on the north-western side were seen lying low in comparison with the property in question. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also made reference with certain Google images obtained to conclude that the property has been converted after 2008.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner quite rightly points out that before issuing an order in the nature of Ext.P14, the report of Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) ought to have been obtained in the matter. In the case at hand, such a report is also not seen obtained. Furthermore, the learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court the data bank at Ext.P7 of the year 2012, wherein the property of the petitioner in Survey No.69/1 of Thiruvangadu village is shown as converted at least 10 years prior to the preparation of the data bank. If that be the case, the conclusion in Ext.P14 to the effect that the property is converted after 2008 does not appear to be correct. In other words, the findings in Ext.P14 do not go in tandem with the endorsements in Ext.P7 data bank.

6. On the whole, I am of the opinion that Ext.P14 also requires to be set aside ordering a reconsideration at the hands of the Revenue Divisional Officer.

Resultantly, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P13, issued by the District Collector as well as Ext.P14 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. There will be a direction to the District Collector as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the issue afresh with reference to the observations in this judgment. This Court further orders that the District Collector or the competent authority is free to pass orders on the proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the Act, only after the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed orders on the Form 5 application, in accordance with law. Needless to say that the petitioner to be granted an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

S