Minimally compliant designations of land do not justify rejection of removal applications under conservation laws if there are eligible considerations.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34939 of 2024 is stated to be the owner in possession of 15.95 Ares of land in survey No.26/1 of Kattipparuthy Village in Tirur Taluk. Insofar as the afore property was included in the data bank, he filed Ext.P5 application in Form 5 dated 28.07.2023, seeking the same to be removed from the data bank. By the impugned order at Ext.P8 dated 30.08.2024, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), having rejected the application, the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition.

2. Heard Sri.K.P.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.N.B. Sunil Nath, learned Government Pleader.

3. A reading of the order at Ext.P8 would show that, the RDO has referred to the report obtained from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environmental Centre (KSREC), as well as another report from the Agricultural Officer. According to the RDO, the KSREC report has shown that the property in question was suitable for cultivation at least to some extent.

4. At the same time, the report of the KSREC available at Ext.P7 has concluded as under:-

“The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2008, 2010, 2011, 2016 and 2022 for the survey plot.

As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 26/1-

14 was observed as paddy land. The plot was observed partially under fallow land with mixed vegetation/plantation towards south side in the data of 2008. The same land use pattern was observed to continue in the data of 2010 and 2011. The data of 2016 shows the plot under mixed vegetation/plantation with partially fallow land towards north-west side. The data of 2022 shows the plot under mixed vegetation/plantation.”

According to the KSREC, during 2008, the property in question was “fallow land mixed vegetation/plantation towards south side”. This Court, in Sudheesh U. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [ 2023 (2) KHC 505 ] has already found that the mere description of the property as fallow land by itself is not a reason for rejecting an otherwise eligible application for removal of the property from the data bank.

5. This Court also notices that, as rightly contended by Sri.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Village Officer addressed the RDO through Ext.P2, informing that there was no paddy cultivation in the nearby areas for quite a long period of time. He has also reported that there were paddy fields in the nearby areas almost "long back”. He has also stated that the afore paddy land has since been converted and constructed the houses/theatres, etc. In the light of the afore findings also, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was justified in presenting an application in Form 5. However, the consideration made in Ext.P8 does not appear to be correct, especially in the light of the findings contained in the report of the KSREC, as well as the opinion of the village officer at Ext.P8.

6. In such circumstances, the matter requires a revisit at the hands of the authorised officer.

7. The learned Government Pleader also made reference to the statement dated 30.10.2024, filed in WP(C) W.P.(C) No.25201 of 2023, to contend that, as per the report of the KSREC, the land in question was fit for paddy cultivation. However, the afore contention raised by the learned Government Pleader also does not go in tune with the findings contained in the report of the KSREC, extracted as above, as well as the report of the Village Officer.

Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P8 issued by the RDO. The RDO/authorised officer to pass fresh orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four month