IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
JIJI ISSAC
S/O.ISSAC PALLATHU VEEDU, ERUNOOREKKAR, MANNAMKANDOM
P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561.
BY ADVS.
K.J.MANU RAJ
K.VINAYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 603.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
DEVIKULAM CIRCULAR ROAD, KANNANDEVAN HILLS, IDUKKI
DISTRICT - 685 613.
4 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, MANNAMKANDOM
P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 561.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, MANNAMKANDAM
P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 561.
6 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ADIMALI
KRISHI BHAVAN, ADIMALI, IDUKKI - 685 561.
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 2743 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
"(a) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 order dated 20.12.2021 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same as it is illegal.
(b) Declare that the property of the petitioners lying in Survey No.1013/3-22 Mannamkandom Village in Devikulam in Idukki District is a dry land and it is wrongly included in the data bank as paddy land.
(c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents 2 to 6 to carryout necessary changes in the Data Bank and remove the property from the data bank.
(d) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in Sy.No.1013/3-22 of Mannamkandom Village in Devikulam, Idukki District. According to the petitioner, the property is a dry land and the same is WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022 3 wrongly shown as 'paddy/nilam' in the revenue records and also in the data bank. However, when a Form-V application was filed, the same was rejected by the 3rd respondent by Ext.P4 order. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent did not consider Ext.P5 report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing & Environment Centre (in short KSREC). According to the petitioner, the property was converted before the enactment of Conservation of Paddy And Wet Land Act, 2008. According to the petitioner, there is no proper consideration of the facts and the petitioner was not even heard before passing Ext.P4. Hence this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on Ext.P5 report of the KSREC and submits that without considering Ext.P5 report, Ext.P4 order was passed. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that after perusing the report of the Local Level WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022 4 Monitoring Committee, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P4 order.
5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner. It is true that in Ext.P4 order, the 3rd respondent considered the matter in detail and also considered the report submitted by the Committee. But the point raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P5 is not considered and an opportunity of hearing is not given to the petitioner. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of this Court in Suraj K.S. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others (2018 (1) KHC 250) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ekm and others ( 2020 (2) KHC
94).
6. I do not want to make any observation about the applicability of this judgment. The 3 rd respondent will consider the same while reconsidering the matter. Hence, matter can be remitted back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration and the 3rd respondent WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022 5 will consider Ext.P5 report and also the applicability of the decisions cited by the petitioner. An opportunity of hearing also should be given to the petitioner. For facilitating the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter, Ext.P4 can be set aside.
Therefore this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:
i. Ext.P4 is set aside.
ii. The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider
the matter in the light of Ext.P5 and also taking into account the decisions cited supra.
iii. The 3rd respondent will conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN DM JUDGE WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2743/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 9/8/2021.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 8/1/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR REMOVAL FROM THE DATA BANK.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13 DATED 11/9/2021.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 20/12/2021.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE KSREC REPORT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12/1/2022 IN WP(C) 993/2022. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE