The court emphasized the necessity of considering prior orders and relevant legal principles in evaluating land use under specific statutes.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has purchased certain extent of properties pursuant to Ext.P1 sale deed of the year 2005. The petitioner contends that the afore extent of properties covered by Ext.P1 sale deed - 11.23 Ares in Sy.No.110 in Block No.7 of Kakkanad Village, is covered by the proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for short ‘KLU Order’) in the name of the predecessor in interest from whom the petitioner purchased the property. Ext.P4 order has been obtained by the predecessor in interest as early as in the year 1996. According to the petitioner, the afore extent of property was converted on the basis of proceedings at Ext.P4 then and there. However, when the petitioner came to realise that the afore extent of property was included in the data bank, he filed an application in Form 5 under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.30539 of 2021 dated 10.03.2022 (Ext.P16), the Revenue Divisional Officer issued an order at Ext.P19 dated 26.09.2022. However, the afore order has been issued without taking note of Ext.P4 proceedings under the KLU Order as has been specifically directed in Ext.P16. This was specifically recorded by this Court in Ext.P20 order in Con.Case (C) No.1187 of 2022. On that basis, a fresh order dated 17.06.2023 has been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, produced as Ext.P23. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P23 that the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Sri.Varghese M.Easo, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L, the learned Government Pleader.

3. A reading of Ext.P23 would show that an inspection was carried out on the land in question, and according to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the land in question is suitable for paddy cultivation. At the same time, the afore finding does not go in tandem with the report of the Tahsildar dated 02.04.1996, produced as Ext.17, wherein it has been categorically recorded that the property in question was not being cultivated with paddy for the past so many years. Similarly, the report of the KSREC at Ext.P11, also shows that the ultimate conclusion as regards the data of 2008, is that the property was lying as ‘fallow land’. It has been categorically found by a Division Bench of this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ekm and Others [2020(2) KHC 94] that mere description of the property as fallow land by itself is not a reason for rejecting an application under Form 5. In the case at hand, apart from the afore, this Court also notices that the property in question is covered by the proceedings under the KLU Order of the year 1996.

4. However, while issuing the order at Ext.P23, the issue has not been addressed with specific reference to the afore aspects.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires fresh consideration at the hands of the authorized officer. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P23. There will be a direction to the authorized officer to pass fresh orders, within a period of five months from today, taking into account the observations/findings in this judgment as well as the principles laid down by this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association (supra) and the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P16 judgment.