IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18012 OF 2022
PETITIONER
VARGHESE ISSAC
AGED 72 YEARS
PUTHANMADATHIL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZHU KARA
KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT PUTHANMADATHIL HOUSE VILLA 29,
PARIYAR HERMITAGE, THAIKATTUKARA, ALUVA PIN-683106)
BY ADVS.
ALEXANDER JOSEPH
M.V.SABU
AKHILASREE BHASKARAN
ANTONY NIKHIL REMELO
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM -682030
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA MINI CIVIL STATION, MUDAVOOR
MUVATTUPUZHA RD - 686669
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOTHAMANGALAM. KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMAGALAM,
ERNAKULAM -686691
5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REP. BY ITS CONVENER/ THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTHAMANGALAM,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686691
WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022
2
SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022 The petitioner, who is owner of 19.42 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.1048/2 of Kothamangalam Village, is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), whereby the RDO has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for changing the nature of the land in Revenue records.
2. The petitioner states that the petitioner purchased 19.42 Ares of property in 1972. The property though finds place in the Data Bank, in the remarks column, it has been described as converted land. In the Revenue records, the property is described as paddy land/wetland. The application submitted by the petitioner for changing the nature of the land is rejected as per Ext.P6 order, by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the District Collector. WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022 4
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there is no paddy cultivation in the property of the petitioner or anywhere near the petitioner's property. The nearby properties are used as residential plots and garden land and the petitioner's property alone is retained as paddy land/wetland in Revenue records. Merely because there is a water channel and water is accumulated there, the respondents cannot treated it as wetland, argued the counsel for the petitioner.
4. The Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is pointed out that the petitioner's property admittedly finds a place in the Data Bank and therefore the petitioner may have to move the RDO filing Form-5 application first. The petitioner has approached the RDO without first filing application for removing the land from the Data Bank.
WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022 5
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader representing the respondents.
6. The petitioner owns 19.42 Ares of land in Kothamangalam Village. According to the petitioner, it is lying as a 'Purayidam'. All adjacent properties are converted lands, where buildings are constructed. Trees of long life are also in the neighbouring properties. The petitioner's property consisting of hardly 20 Ares of land, cannot alone be treated as a paddy land or wetland. The petitioner submitted application in Form-6 for changing the nature of the land. The application stands rejected as per Ext.P6. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the District Collector.
7. As the petitioner has invoked his statutory remedy under Section 27B of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 challenging Ext.P6, this Court is of the view that no adjudication of the issues raised by the petitioner is required in this writ petition at this stage. It will be sufficient if WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022 6 the District Collector is directed to dispose of Ext.P7 appeal, within a time frame.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent- District Collector to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 appeal, within a period of three months.
sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18012/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2521/1972 DATED 10/10/1972 OF KOTHAMANGALAM SRO. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE FOR FIXING THE FAIR VALUE Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 6 DATED 06/12/2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27.12.2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.05.2022 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.