Proper consideration under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act requires assessment of pre-enactment conversion status of property and evidence from relevant reports.

JUDGMENT

I have heard Sri.Alwin Jew, learned counsel, representing Sri.P.Sathisan, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.S.L.Sylaja, learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner is in the second round of litigation.

The petitioners’ property, having an extent of 4.86 Ares in re- Survey No.381/4-2 of Maradu Village, was included in the data bank. According to the petitioner, the said inclusion was incorrect, insofar as the same was a converted land already by the time the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), came into existence. In the earlier round of litigation, when the Form 5 application filed by the petitioner was rejected, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6082 of 2022. By Ext.P10 judgment dated 21.07.2022, this Court, also noticing the findings in the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) report as well as the advice in the Minutes of the LLMC, directed the matter to be reconsidered. The order issued thereafter - Ext.P11 dated

16.10.2023, is impugned in this writ petition.

3. A reading of the order at Ext.P11 would show that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) has only relied on the advice of the Agricultural Officer as well as the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC). The issue, which ought to have been considered by the RDO, was as to whether the property was converted before the coming into force of the Act. This also ought to have been considered with reference to the findings in the KSREC report. The report of the KSREC is already available in the earlier round of litigation. The same has also been noticed in paragraph 4 of Ext.P10 judgment in the first round of litigation. However, while issuing the order at Ext.P11, the RDO has not even referred to the report of the KSREC.

4. In my opinion, the findings in Ext.P11 solely on the basis of the LLMC report, as well as the report of the Agricultural Officer cannot be sustained. The consideration ought to have been with reference to the suitability of the land for paddy cultivation, with reference to the findings in the KSREC report. Insofar as this has not been done, the matter requires a revisit at the hands of the RDO.

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside Ext.P11. The RDO or the authorised officer to pass orders afresh, taking into account the findings contained in the KSREC report, as well as after carrying out a physical verification of the property as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-