Kerala High Court
Vijayan.V.John vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 30 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021/8TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 28149 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
VIJAYAN V.JOHN, S/O LATE V.J.JOHN,
AGED 54, FLAT NO.4 C, SKYLINE TOPAZ,
KALOOR KADAVANTHRA ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN-682 017 REPRESENTED BY
HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SOPHIA V JOHN,
AGED 53 YEARS, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, COHCIN-682 017.
BY ADVS.
ANIL GEORGE
SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
SHRI.DAJISH JOHN
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI-682 001.
2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
OFFICE OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 578.
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHERANELLOOR,
DESOM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 027.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE,
CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 544.
ADDL.R5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM PIN 682 030.
(ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
30.07.2021 IN I.A.NO.2/2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.28149/2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2021
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to
quash Ext.P11 and commanding the 1st respondent to
consider Exts.P6 and P8 applications on the basis of
Exts.P7 and P9 reports of the Agricultural Officer as well as
Village Officer within a time frame that may be fixed by this
Court.
2. The petitioner is the owner of 8.09 Ares of
property in Cheranelloor Village, Kanayannoor Taluk in
Ernakulam District. According to the petitioner, the property
of the petitioner is a garden land. However, in the Data
Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the property of the petitioner
is included with the remarks 'converted land'.
WP(C) No.28149/2020
3. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P6
application in Form-5 seeking to remove the land of the
petitioner from the Data Bank. The petitioner also filed
Ext.P8 application in Form-6 seeking to change the nature
of the land in revenue records.
4. The Local Level Monitoring Committee inspected
the site and decided on 27.02.2020 as per Ext.P7, to
recommend removal of the land of the petitioner from Data
Bank as the Committee found that the land is having
yielding coconut trees.
5. However, to the surprise and predicament of the
petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext.P11
order holding that if the land is permitted to be removed
from the Data Bank, there is a likelihood of flood. The
Revenue Divisional Officer further found that this land is not
suitable for filling up and also there is a canal near the
property. On these premises, Ext.P6 application was
WP(C) No.28149/2020
rejected.
6. The petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order of the
Revenue Divisional Officer contending that the Revenue
Divisional Officer cannot go against the specific
recommendations of Local Level Monitoring Committee
made after site inspection. The petitioner would further
submit that there is no canal anywhere near the property in
question and the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer in
this regard is patently erroneous.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also urged
that Ext.P12 Report of Land Use Change issued by the
Director, KSREC is in favour of the petitioner and in the said
report, it was found that the land was not a paddy land or
wetland during the years 2007, 2009, 2016 and 2020. In
such circumstances, Ext.P11 order of the 1 st respondent is
liable to be set aside, contended the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
WP(C) No.28149/2020
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader representing the
respondents.
9. It is evident from the pleadings in the case that
the petitioner has submitted applications for removal of his
land from Land Data Bank as well as for changing the
nature of the land in revenue records. Pursuant to the
application submitted by the petitioner, the Local Level
Monitoring Committee inspected the site and made specific
recommendations that the land of the petitioner can be
removed from the Data Bank. Ext.P12 Report of Land Use
Change in respect of the land of the petitioner issued by the
Director of KSREC has made the following observations
and conclusions:
"The analysis has been carried out from
all available data sets of toposheet (1967)
and different satellite data sets of 2007, 2009,
2016 and 2020 for the survey plot.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the
survey plot 223/2-3 was observed as paddy
land. The plot bordered by a road in east and
WP(C) No.28149/2020
a building/structure on south was observed
under mixed vegetation/plantation/trees in
2007 data. The same trend in land use
practices were continued in 2009 and 2016
data. The density of mixed vegetation/
plantation/trees was observed as decreased
in 2020 data.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the
survey plot 223/3-2-8 was observed as paddy
land. The plot was observed under
road/construction in the data of year 2007.
The same trend in land use practices were
continued in the data of 2009, 2016 and
2020."
From Ext.P12 report, it is discernible that the land was not a
paddy land or wetland in the year 2007 after which only the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
came into force.
10. In view of the overwhelming evidence contrary to
the findings of the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional
Officer, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 1 st
respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer shall reconsider the
issue with specific reference to Ext.P12 Report. This is
especially so when the Local Level Monitoring Committee
had also recommended that the petitioner's land should be
WP(C) No.28149/2020
removed from the Land Data Bank.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the 1st respondent to reconsider applications of the
petitioner at Exts.P6 and P8 in the light of Ext.P12 report of
the KSREC and take a decision afresh within a period of
three months. To enable the 1st respondent to take an
independent decision as directed above, Ext.P11 order is
set aside.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ncd/30.07.2021
WP(C) No.28149/2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28149/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04.05.2007.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.1263/1997 OF SRO ERNAKULAM DATED
9.9.1997.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE
PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2021 DATED
07.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE
PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE DATA BANK SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 03.01.2020 IN FORM-5.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT DATED 03.02.2020
ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 13.01.2020 IN FORM-6.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED
24.01.2020 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
03.12.2020 PASSED BY THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SATELLITE DATA
INFORMATION TO THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
CHERANALLOOR KRISHI BHAVAN, ERNAKULAM FOR
LAND USE/COVER CHANGE DEDECTION REPORT,
MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURVEY PLOTS
223/2-3 AND 223/3-2-8
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL FILED UNDER
SECTION 27B OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT.
