Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1502 (KER)

Jerry S/o C. J. Ittoop v. State of Kerala

2025-05-28

C.S.DIAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition is filed to quash Exts.P18 and P19 orders and direct the 3 rd respondent to re-consider Exts.P15 and P16 applications (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). 2. The 1 st petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.51 Ares and 90 Sq. meters of land and the 2 nd petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0130 Ares of land, both comprised in old Survey No.18/6A and Re- survey Nos.187/39, 187/37 and 187/38 of Kannambra-II Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad District covered by Ext.P2 and P4 title deeds and Exts.P5 and P6 possession certificates. The petitioners’ properties are garden land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the same as paddy land and included it in the data bank. In order to remove the properties from the data bank, the petitioners submitted Exts.P15 an P16 applications before the 3 rd respondent. The 3 rd respondent without independently evaluating the matter, solely based on the report of the 7 th respondent, has perfunctorily rejected the applications by the impugned Exts.P18 and P19 orders. Exts.P18 and P19 are illegal and erroneous. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The petitioners’ case is that, their properties are garden land. They have been erroneously classified as paddy land and included it in the data bank. It was in the said background, that they have submitted Exts.P15 and P16 applications to remove it from the data bank. However, the 3 rd respondent has rejected the same, without any independent evaluation or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside. 5. It was in the said background, that they have submitted Exts.P15 and P16 applications to remove it from the data bank. However, the 3 rd respondent has rejected the same, without any independent evaluation or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside. 5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court in Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer , 2023 (4) KHC 524 , Sudheesh U. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad , 2023 (2) KLT 386 and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others , 2021 (1) KLT 433 . 6. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others , 2020 (2) KHC 94 , a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and gets waterlogged during the rainy season or otherwise, due to the low-lying nature of the property, the property cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, 2023 (6) KHC 83 , holding that the prime consideration to retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land. 7. A reading of Exts.P18 and P19 orders would substantiate that the 3 rd respondent has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the petitioners’ property as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, the date of commencement of the Act, or whether the removal of the petitioners’ property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. The 3 rd respondent has not directly inspected the property or called for satellite images from the Central/State Institutes of Science and Technology as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The 3 rd respondent has not directly inspected the property or called for satellite images from the Central/State Institutes of Science and Technology as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who has stated that, there are no buildings and trees in the petitioners’ property and there is no proof that it was converted prior to 2008, has rejected the applications. I find that there has been total non-application of the mind in passing Exts.P18 and P19 orders and the same are liable to be quashed, and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i). Exst.P18 and P19 and orders are quashed. (ii). The 3 rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Exts.P15 and P16 applications, in accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images as per the procedure provided under Rule 4(4f) at the expense of the petitioners. (iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Exts.P15 and P16 application within three months from the date of receipt of the satellite images. In case he proposes to directly inspect the property, he shall dispose of the Exts.P15 and P16 applications within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 9. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.