Sonaji vs The Tahsildar (Lr)
2021 Latest Caselaw 20541 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 12460 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

         SONAJI
         AGED 43 YEARS
         D/O PATHUMMA BEEGOM,ELASSERIL
         VEEDU,PERUNNAD,CLAPPANA.

         BY ADVS.
         R.SUNIL KUMAR
         A.SALINI LAL


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
         TALUK OFFICE,KARUNAGAPPALLY,PIN-690518.
    2    THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
         DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,KRISHI BHAVAN,
         CLAPPAN-690546.
    3    THE VILLAGE OFFICER
         VILLAGE OFFICE,CLAPPANA,PIN-690546.


         By SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN, SR. GOVT. PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021,      THE COURT ON THE SAME    DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.12460/2021
                                :2 :




                        JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 1st day of October, 2021

Petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by Exts.P3

and P7 and seeking to declare that the petitioner's property in

Re-survey No.192/4 of Clappana Village as 'purayidom' and

not to disturb the legal activities carry out by the petitioner in

her property.

2. The petitioner states that she is the owner of 26.98

Ares of property in Re-survey No.192/4 of Clappana Village.

The petitioner obtained the property under Ext.P1 Settlement

Deed dated 03.10.2005. For construction of a residential

house, the petitioner submitted an application for Building

Permit before the Municipal authorities. The Building Permit

application is pending.

3. The petitioner would state that there are trees

standing in the property, having age of more than 40 years. WP(C) No.12460/2021

When a road was constructed adjacent to the property of the

petitioner, the land of the petitioner became low-lying land and

therefore, before starting construction of residential building,

the petitioner had to develop the property using ordinary earth.

On 01.04.2021, when two lorries were unloading ordinary

earth in the property of the petitioner, the 3 rd respondent-

Village Officer came to the property and seized the vehicles

alleging that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

4. The petitioner would state that the land is evidently

'purayidom' in the Basic Tax Register. The Village Officer has

issued Stop Memo deliberately ignoring the fact that the

description of the property in the Basic Tax Register is

'purayidom'. The seizure of the lorries from the property of the

petitioner is therefore illegal. The owners of the vehicles

approached this Court and the said writ petition was disposed

of directing the petitioners therein to approach the 1 st

respondent-District Collector with an application. WP(C) No.12460/2021

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that in Ext.P2, the 3rd respondent has a case that the property

is included in the Data Bank. From Ext.P5 certificate, it is

evident that the property is not included in the Data Bank.

Ext.P4 would show that the land of the petitioner is a

'purayidom'/garden land. In such circumstances, there cannot

be any prosecution or any other proceedings against the

petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of

Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

6. The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ

petition and submitted that the land is a low-lying paddy land

and it ought to have been included in the Data Bank. The

description of the property in the revenue records are wrong

and the property of the petitioner ought to have been included

in the Data Bank. It is in such circumstances that the

Tahsildar has issued Ext.P7 communication to the Agricultural

Officer, who is the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring

Committee, directing to take steps under Section 5(4)(1) of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act to WP(C) No.12460/2021

include the land in the Data Bank.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

8. From the pleadings and arguments, it is evident

that the land at present is described as 'purayidom' in the

Basic Tax Register. There is also no dispute that the land as

on date is not included in the Land Data Bank. In the

circumstances, the respondents will not be justified in any

manner to interfere with the right of the petitioner for free

enjoyment of the land invoking the provisions of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 or the

Rules made thereunder.

The writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 is quashed.

The respondents are directed not to interfere with the right of

the petitioner to enjoy the ownership of her property, invoking

the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

Wetland Act, 2008 or the Rules made thereunder.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/04.10.2021 WP(C) No.12460/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12460/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE REPORT GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE SUB COLLECTOR,KOLLAM DATED 1/4/21.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23/4/21 Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.9223/2021 Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15/4/21 Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2020(4)KHC 33 .