Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 193 (KER)

Koshy Philip v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2025-02-06

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ziyad Rahman A.A., J. The petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of 16.20 Ares comprised in Re-Survey No.82/8-2 of Ezhamkulam Village in Adoor Taluk. The case of the petitioner is that, even though the property was reclaimed prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter called the Paddy Land Act), the said property was included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act by describing it as ‘dry land’. In such circumstances, as the petitioner’s property should not have been included in the Data Bank, he submitted an application in Form-5 which was rejected as per Ext.P5. The same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.26666 of 2023, which culminated in Ext.P6 judgment by which the Ext.P5 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the 1st respondent with a direction to reconsider the same after obtaining a report from the KSREC. 2. In compliance with the said directions, the Ext.P7 report was obtained, and thereafter, the 1st respondent passed the Ext.P8 order, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8. 3. A statement has been submitted by the 1st respondent in response to the averments contained in the writ petition, wherein they justified the view taken by the 1st respondent in Ext.P8. 4. Heard Sri.C.K.Sherin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Deepa V., learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in Ext.P4 Data Bank itself, the property was described as ‘dry land’. Therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5, should not have been rejected by the 1st respondent. 6. On going through Ext.P4, I find merits in the said contention. The property of the petitioner is described as Sl.No.322 therein and the property is described as ‘dry land’. It is also specified therein that there are buildings, coconut crops and banana plantain in existence on the property. Thus, the fact that the description of the property in Ext.P4 Data Bank is that of ‘dry land’, clearly indicates that the property was identified by the authorities concerned as ‘dry land’ on the date of preparation of the Data Bank. It is also specified therein that there are buildings, coconut crops and banana plantain in existence on the property. Thus, the fact that the description of the property in Ext.P4 Data Bank is that of ‘dry land’, clearly indicates that the property was identified by the authorities concerned as ‘dry land’ on the date of preparation of the Data Bank. Since the said entry is made by the competent authorities, on the basis of the details that they collected after ascertaining the physical nature of the property prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act, that cannot be ignored while considering an application in Form-5. 7. As far as the statutory stipulations regarding the conditions/restrictions contained in the Paddy Land Act are concerned, the same are applicable only in respect of the “paddy land” or “wetland” as defined under Section 2(xii) and 2(xvii) of the Paddy Land Act respectively. As per Sections 2(xii) and 2 (xvii), specific definitions have been assigned to the “paddy land” and wetland”, and the said definitions contain the characteristics which are necessary for classifying a property as “paddy land” or “wetland”. In this case, as the property is described as ‘dry land’ in Ext.P4, the only conclusion possible is that the competent authorities have applied the criteria contemplated in section 2(xii) or 2 (xvii) of the Act, and made relevant entries in the Data Bank by describing the property of the petitioner as ‘dry land’, which can only be after being satisfied that, it is not a “paddy land” or “wetland”. As far as the conditions/restrictions contemplated under the Paddy Land Act are concerned, they cannot be made applicable to a property which does not satisfy the description of a “paddy land” or “wetland” as defined under the said provisions, merely because of the reason that the property was included in the Data Bank, when such entry was not as “paddy land” or “wetland”. Here, the entry regarding the property of the petitioner in the Data Bank itself is ‘dry land’ and as per the scheme of the Act, such an entry was not at all necessary. This is because, the Data Bank was insisted to be created for the purpose of including the details of the “paddy land” or “wetland” as defined in the Paddy Land Act. This is because, the Data Bank was insisted to be created for the purpose of including the details of the “paddy land” or “wetland” as defined in the Paddy Land Act. It is to be noted in this regard that, Section 5 (4) (i) of the Paddy Land Act, reads as follows: “The Committee shall perform the following functions, namely;- (i) To prepare the data-bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland, within the area of jurisdiction of the Committee, with the help of the map prepared or to be prepared by the State Land Use Board or Centre -State Science and Technology Institutions on the basis of satellite pictures by incorporating the survey numbers and extent in the data-bank and get it notified by the concerned Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation, in such manner as may be prescribed , and exhibit the same for the information of the public, in the respective Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation Office and the Village Office /Offices.” 8. Thus, Ext P4 is published after complying with all the said procedures and thus, the entry of the petitioner’s property therein with a description as ‘dry land” would lead to an irresistible conclusion that, while adopting the said procedure, the competent authorities found the property of the petitioner as a property not coming within the definition of ‘paddy land’. or “wetland”. Therefore, the entry of the petitioner’s property by describing it as ‘dry land’, itself was an unwanted entry, which is liable to be removed, in view of the fact that, the data-bank, was not intended to include the details of any other properties than “paddy land” or ‘”wetland” as defined under the Act. The view taken by this court is fortified by the observations made by this court in Salim.C.K v. State of Kerala and others [ 2017(1) KLT 392 ], where this court took the view that the Data Bank is supposed to contain the details of the “paddy lands” or wetlands” alone. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P8 order, by holding that in the light of Ext.P4 Data Bank, wherein the property of the petitioner was described as ‘dry land’, the same cannot be treated as a “paddy land’ or “wetland” for the purpose of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and therefore, the same is an erroneous entry, which needs to be removed. Accordingly, the 1st respondent or the authorized officer under Section 2(xv) of the Paddy Land Act is directed to pass appropriate orders removing the property of the petitioner from the Data Bank and take necessary steps to issue appropriate notifications in this regard. Necessary orders shall be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.