Mathew Kurian vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6139 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 17552 OF 2022


PETITIONER:



         MATHEW KURIAN,
         AGED 60 YEARS,
         S/O MATHAI, MAZHUVANCHERY HOUSE,
         CHITTETHUKARA, KAKKANADU P.O.,
         ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030.

         BY ADV K.C.VINCENT




RESPONDENTS:


    1    THE STATE OF KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
         DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

    2    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         FORT KOCHI,
         FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,
         PIN - 682001.

    3    THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
         VILLAGE OFFICE, MANAKUNNAM, UDAYAMPEROOR,
         THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM,
         PIN - 682307.

    4    THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
         REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
         KRISHI BHAVAN,
         VALIYAKULAM P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM
         PIN - 682307.
 WP(C) NO. 17552 OF 2022               2



     5       THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
             KRISHI BHAVAN,
             VALIYAKULAM P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM,
             PIN - 682307.




             SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   01.06.2022,   THE   COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17552 OF 2022           3




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022

The petitioner, who holds 5.57 Ares of property in

Manakunnam Village in Kanayannur Taluk, has approached this

Court seeking to direct the 4th respondent-Local Level Monitoring

Committee (LLMC) to finalise Ext.P2 application and to remove the

land of the petitioner from the Data Bank. The petitioner also seeks

to direct the 2nd respondent to process his application submitted

under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

Wetland Act, 2008, after obtaining orders on Ext.P2.

2. The petitioner states that he purchased land of 5.57 Ares in

Re-survey No.209/1-2 and 4.10 Ares in 209/4 in Block No.19 of

Manakunnam Village in Kanayannur Taluk. The land was

erroneously included in the Data Bank as paddy land, In fact, when

the petitioner purchased the land in the year 2008, the land was of

the nature of garden land. The conversion of land, if any, took place

much before the year 2008.

3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application before the

LLMC seeking to remove the land from the Data Bank. The

petitioner has also obtained Ext.P3 Report from the Kerala State

Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC). Thereafter,

the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application in Form 6 to the

Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The applications of the

petitioner are not being considered and disposed of. The delay in

consideration and disposal of Exts.P2 and P4 causes undue

hardships to the petitioner, contends the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Pleader representing the

respondents resisted the writ petition. The learned Government

Pleader pointed out that Ext.P2 application was submitted as early

as in the year 2017. Without taking a decision on Ext.P2 application,

the petitioner's Ext.P4 application for changing the nature of the

land in Revenue records cannot be considered. Ext.P3-KSRSEC

Report was not available when Ext.P2 application was made by the

petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

6. The fact that the petitioner holds 5.57 Ares of land in

Manakunnam Village in Kanayannur Taluk is not disputed. Ext.P1

is the Tax Receipt in proof of holding of the land by the petitioner.

Ext.P2 is an application made invoking the provisions of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The

petitioner has produced Ext.P3 report of the KSRSEC, which would

show that as per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 209/4 was

observed as paddy land and the plot was observed under mixed

vegetation/plantation since 2006.

7. In view of the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that

the respondents are liable to consider the applications made by the

petitioner in accordance with law.

In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing

the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P2 application submitted by the

petitioner and take a decision thereon within a period of six weeks.

Once the 4th respondent takes a decision, the 2 nd respondent shall

consider Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner for change

of the nature of the land, based on the decision of the LLMC. The

RDO, Fort Kochi shall take a decision on Ext.P4 within a period of

four months from the date of receipt of the decision of the LLMC on

Ext.P2 application.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE DSV/01.06.2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17552/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ExhibitP1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 31.01.2022.

ExhibitP2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE LLMC WITH RECEIPT DATED 23.09.2017.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT FROM KSRSEC DATED 30.12.2019.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.05.2022 ALONGWITH RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF FEE.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:    NIL