The classification of land based solely on waterlogging does not justify its designation as wetland, necessitating reconsideration of applications for land utilization.

JUDGMENT

Since common issues are involved in these two writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment, adverting to the facts in W.P.(C) No.38957 of 2022.

2. Petitioner obtained 4.34 Ares of land comprising in resurvey No.99/41-2 of Lalam Village by way of settlement deed No.1855/I/2003 of Sub Registrar Office, Meenachil. Properties of the petitioner and his sibling (petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38987 of 2022) are lying conjointly and were unsuitable for paddy cultivation prior to the year 2000 and three boundaries of the above land were reclaimed much earlier. Thereafter petitioner started cultivation of coconut, arecanut, etc. in the land in the year 2000 itself. Petitioner approached this Court after filing an application under Kerala Land Utilisation Order (in short, “KLU Order”) on 12.02.2018 before the 1^st respondent and this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment directed the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the application submitted to remove the land from the data bank and also directed the 1^st respondent to consider the application under Clause 6 of the KLU Order. As per the direction in Ext.P1, the 2^nd respondent on

03.07.2018 decided to remove the land from the data bank and Ext.P2 final data bank was notified in the gazette. Thereafter the 1^st respondent allowed the application submitted under Clause 6 of the KLU Order as per Ext.P3. In Ext.P3, petitioner was obliged to file an application as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendments) Act, 2018. Thereupon petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application in Form 6 and since no action has been taken, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court again by filing W.P.(C) No.23372 of 2021 and the same was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment, directing the 1^st respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 application. Without considering the matter in proper perspective, by Ext.P7 order the application was rejected on the ground that the land was not converted so far and it is lying as a wet land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C) No.20438 of 2022 and this Court disposed of the writ petition as per Ext.P8 judgment, setting aside Ext.P7 order and directing reconsideration of Ext.P4 Form 6 application. Ultimately, the 1^st respondent again rejected the application as per Ext.P9 order for the reason that the property is lying five feet below the road level and there is waterlogging in the property and the property has not been converted at all. It is aggrieved by the same, that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Petitioner submits that this Court has already found in Ext.P8 judgment, relying on Mather Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others, 2020 (2) KLT 192 that merely because a land is found waterlogged, it cannot be classified as a wetland. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Ext.P10 submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued a direction to the Local Level Monitoring Committee to include the property in the data bank and thereafter Ext.P9 order was issued rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner.

4. Heard the rival contentions on both sides.

5. It is an admitted fact that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, the Local Level Monitoring Committee has decided to remove the land from the data bank and a perusal of Ext.P2 revealed that the property has not been included in the final data bank notified in the gazette. It is also an admitted fact that by Ext.P3 the application submitted under Clause 6 of the KLU Order was also allowed permitting the petitioner to utilise the land for purposes other than agricultural activities. Thereafter, as directed in Ext.P3 that the application in Form 6 has been submitted by the petitioner.