Failure to obtain necessary reports led to a prejudiced judgment by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.Avaneesh Koyikkara, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.S.L.Sylaja, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is stated to be the owner in enjoyment and possession of 27.11 Ares in Survey No.230/3/10 and 230/3/1 of Punnala Village in Kollam District. According to the petitioner, the land though was converted earlier to the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the property was erroneously included in the data bank as a “paddy field”. In such circumstances, he submitted an application in Form 5 under the Keala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), before the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, seeking removal of the property from the data bank. However, by the impugned order at Ext.P6, the Revenue Divisional Officer refused the prayer made as above, and the petitioner is before this Court.

3. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that the decision thereunder has been taken solely on the basis of an enquiry, stated to have been carried out by the Agricultural Officer. No report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) is seen obtained while considering the application filed by the petitioner. Insofar as the petitioner had specifically contended that the properties were converted land, sufficiently earlier to the enactment of the Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have obtained the report of the KSREC. Insofar as that is not done, I am of the opinion that the matter requires a reconsideration at the hands of the 3^rd respondent - RDO.

Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P6. There will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent - RDO or the authorised officer to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner in Form 5, also taking into account the report from the KSREC for which fee requires to be paid by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The 3^rd respondent – RDO would also be free to carry out a personal inspection of the property, if found necessary.

Sd/-