Varghese Issac vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6824 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
        TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 18012 OF 2022
PETITIONER

             VARGHESE ISSAC
             AGED 72 YEARS
             PUTHANMADATHIL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZHU KARA
             KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
             NOW RESIDING AT PUTHANMADATHIL HOUSE VILLA 29,
             PARIYAR HERMITAGE, THAIKATTUKARA, ALUVA PIN-683106)
             BY ADVS.
             ALEXANDER JOSEPH
             M.V.SABU
             AKHILASREE BHASKARAN
             ANTONY NIKHIL REMELO




RESPONDENTS:

    1        STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
             DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
             SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
    2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

             COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM -682030
    3        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             MUVATTUPUZHA MINI CIVIL STATION, MUDAVOOR
             MUVATTUPUZHA RD - 686669
    4        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             KOTHAMANGALAM. KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMAGALAM,
             ERNAKULAM -686691
    5        THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
             REP. BY ITS CONVENER/ THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
             KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTHAMANGALAM,
             KOTHAMANGALAM P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686691
 WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022
                                2




            SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GP
     THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   14.06.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022
                               3




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022

The petitioner, who is owner of 19.42 Ares of land

comprised in Survey No.1048/2 of Kothamangalam Village, is

before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 order of the Revenue

Divisional Officer (RDO), whereby the RDO has rejected the

application submitted by the petitioner for changing the nature

of the land in Revenue records.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner purchased

19.42 Ares of property in 1972. The property though finds

place in the Data Bank, in the remarks column, it has been

described as converted land. In the Revenue records, the

property is described as paddy land/wetland. The application

submitted by the petitioner for changing the nature of the land

is rejected as per Ext.P6 order, by the Revenue Divisional

Officer. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, the petitioner has preferred

Ext.P7 appeal before the District Collector. WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that

there is no paddy cultivation in the property of the petitioner or

anywhere near the petitioner's property. The nearby properties

are used as residential plots and garden land and the

petitioner's property alone is retained as paddy land/wetland in

Revenue records. Merely because there is a water channel

and water is accumulated there, the respondents cannot

treated it as wetland, argued the counsel for the petitioner.

4. The Government Pleader entered appearance and

resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all

the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is

pointed out that the petitioner's property admittedly finds a

place in the Data Bank and therefore the petitioner may have

to move the RDO filing Form-5 application first. The petitioner

has approached the RDO without first filing application for

removing the land from the Data Bank.

WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the Government Pleader representing the respondents.

6. The petitioner owns 19.42 Ares of land in

Kothamangalam Village. According to the petitioner, it is lying

as a 'Purayidam'. All adjacent properties are converted lands,

where buildings are constructed. Trees of long life are also in

the neighbouring properties. The petitioner's property

consisting of hardly 20 Ares of land, cannot alone be treated

as a paddy land or wetland. The petitioner submitted

application in Form-6 for changing the nature of the land. The

application stands rejected as per Ext.P6. The petitioner has

preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the District Collector.

7. As the petitioner has invoked his statutory remedy

under Section 27B of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land

and Wetland Act, 2008 challenging Ext.P6, this Court is of the

view that no adjudication of the issues raised by the petitioner

is required in this writ petition at this stage. It will be sufficient if WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022

the District Collector is directed to dispose of Ext.P7 appeal,

within a time frame.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent- District Collector to consider and

pass orders on Ext.P7 appeal, within a period of three months.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.18012 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18012/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2521/1972 DATED 10/10/1972 OF KOTHAMANGALAM SRO. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE FOR FIXING THE FAIR VALUE Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 6 DATED 06/12/2021 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27.12.2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.05.2022 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.