IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
MATHACHAN MATHU
AGED 90 YEARS
S/O. MATHU, THULAKAN PULLAT HOUSE,
KANDANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 305
BY ADV K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 001
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, MANAKUNNAM, UDAYAMPEROOR,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 307
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, VALIYAKULAM P.O.,
UDYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM-682 307
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, VALIYAKULAM P.O.,
UDYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM-682 307
SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022
2
T.R.RAVI, J.
----------------------------------------
WP(C) NO.6756 OF 2022
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th .day of May, 2022
JUDGMENT
The writ petition has been filed challenging rejection of Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner for removal of his property from the Data Bank. According to the petitioner, the property has been lying as 'purayidam' for the past several years. The properties were purchased by the petitioner in 1996 as per Exts.P1(a) and P1(b). The petitioner has produced the report from the KSREC as Ext.P3. Ext.P3 would show that the plots were observed as paddy land in 1967 and that they were observed under mixed vegetation/plantation in 2006 data. It is further stated that the land use practice observed in 2006 continued in the subsequent years in 2008, 2014 and 2018. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner's counsel was issued with a copy of the proceedings of the LLMC which has now been produced WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022 3 along with I.A No.1 of 2022 and I.A No.2 of 2022 as Exts.P4 and P4(a). Ext.P4 report of the Agricultural Officer shows that there are numerous coconut trees around 35 years of age seen on the bunds raised in East West direction of the plot. It is stated that the bunds were formed by the soil which had been taken from the land itself and hence channels were formed in between these bunds where stagnant water is seen. After referring to the KSREC report, it is seen that the LLMC concluded that the property is seen in a partially converted condition with bunds and water channels in between the bunds and hence it is decided to retain the property in the Data bank. Ext.P4(a) which is the minutes of the meeting of the LLMC also shows that portions of the property shows 'thodu' and 'chira'. The counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in K.K. Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer and others in WP(C)No.33071 of 2019 to contend that what was required is a finding that the property is a paddy land for the purpose of inclusion in the Data Bank and not that in the channel between on bunds where the coconut trees are WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022 4 planted, water logging is seen.
2. I find considerable force in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The conclusion stated in Ext.P4 does not appear to be warranted on the basis of the facts which have been stated in paragraph Nos.3 and 5 of Ext.P4. There is no finding by the LLMC that it is a paddy land so as to justify the retention of the same in the Data Bank.
3. In such circumstances, the decisions in Ext.P4 and P4(a) that the properties are liable to be included in the Data Bank are set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application taking note of the observations in Ext.P3 report of the KSREC which shows that the property is seen as covered with mixed vegetation/plantation in the 2006 data and pass necessary orders. The reason that channels have been formed in between bunds for the purpose of maintaining a coconut plantation shall not be a reason to conclude that the property is a paddy land or a wet land. The 4th respondent shall also keep in mind the decision in K.K.Joy (Supra). Necessary orders shall be passed within WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022 5 one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall make available a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment in WP(C) No.33071 of 2019 to the 4th respondent for complying with the above directions.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI JUDGE sn WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6756/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.06.2020 Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1053 OF 1996 OF S.R.O. TRIPUNITHURA Exhibit P1B TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1054 OF 1996 OF S.R.O. TRIPUNITHURA Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE LLMC ON 25.08.2017 WITH RECEIPT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30.12.2019 RELATING TO 210/2 AND 210/3 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 09-03-2022.
Exhibit P4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE LLMC MET ON 29-07-2020.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE