Kerala High Court
Jiji Issac vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
JIJI ISSAC
S/O.ISSAC PALLATHU VEEDU, ERUNOOREKKAR, MANNAMKANDOM
P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 561.
BY ADVS.
K.J.MANU RAJ
K.VINAYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 603.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
DEVIKULAM CIRCULAR ROAD, KANNANDEVAN HILLS, IDUKKI
DISTRICT - 685 613.
4 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, MANNAMKANDOM
P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 561.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, MANNAMKANDAM
P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 561.
6 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ADIMALI
KRISHI BHAVAN, ADIMALI, IDUKKI - 685 561.
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 2743 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:
"(a) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 order dated
20.12.2021 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same
as it is illegal.
(b) Declare that the property of the petitioners
lying in Survey No.1013/3-22 Mannamkandom Village
in Devikulam in Idukki District is a dry land and it is
wrongly included in the data bank as paddy land.
(c) issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents
2 to 6 to carryout necessary changes in the Data Bank
and remove the property from the data bank.
(d) issue such other appropriate writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the
circumstances of the case."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the
property in Sy.No.1013/3-22 of Mannamkandom Village
in Devikulam, Idukki District. According to the
petitioner, the property is a dry land and the same is
WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022
wrongly shown as 'paddy/nilam' in the revenue records
and also in the data bank. However, when a Form-V
application was filed, the same was rejected by the 3rd
respondent by Ext.P4 order. The main grievance of the
petitioner is that the 3rd respondent did not consider
Ext.P5 report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing &
Environment Centre (in short KSREC). According to the
petitioner, the property was converted before the
enactment of Conservation of Paddy And Wet Land Act,
2008. According to the petitioner, there is no proper
consideration of the facts and the petitioner was not
even heard before passing Ext.P4. Hence this writ
petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies
on Ext.P5 report of the KSREC and submits that without
considering Ext.P5 report, Ext.P4 order was passed. On
the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits
that after perusing the report of the Local Level
WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022
Monitoring Committee, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P4
order.
5. This Court considered the contentions of the
petitioner. It is true that in Ext.P4 order, the 3rd
respondent considered the matter in detail and also
considered the report submitted by the Committee. But
the point raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P5 is not
considered and an opportunity of hearing is not given to
the petitioner. The learned counsel also relies on the
judgment of this Court in Suraj K.S. and Another v.
State of Kerala and Others (2018 (1) KHC 250) and
the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mather
Nagar Residents Association and Another v.
District Collector, Ekm and others ( 2020 (2) KHC
94).
6. I do not want to make any observation about
the applicability of this judgment. The 3 rd respondent will
consider the same while reconsidering the matter.
Hence, matter can be remitted back to the 3rd
respondent for reconsideration and the 3rd respondent
WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022
will consider Ext.P5 report and also the applicability of
the decisions cited by the petitioner. An opportunity of
hearing also should be given to the petitioner. For
facilitating the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter,
Ext.P4 can be set aside.
Therefore this writ petition is disposed of in the
following manner:
i. Ext.P4 is set aside.
ii. The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider
the matter in the light of Ext.P5 and also taking into
account the decisions cited supra.
iii. The 3rd respondent will conclude the
proceedings as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
DM JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 2743 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2743/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 9/8/2021.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN
FORM 5 DATED 8/1/2021 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT FOR REMOVAL FROM THE DATA
BANK.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 13 DATED
11/9/2021.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED
20/12/2021.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF
THE KSREC REPORT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER
DATED 12/1/2022 IN WP(C) 993/2022.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
