Mathachan Mathu vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5758 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
        FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

           MATHACHAN MATHU
           AGED 90 YEARS
           S/O. MATHU, THULAKAN PULLAT HOUSE,
           KANDANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 305

           BY ADV K.C.VINCENT


RESPONDENTS:

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

    2      THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
           OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
           FORT KOCHI, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 001

    3      THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
           VILLAGE OFFICE, MANAKUNNAM, UDAYAMPEROOR,
           THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 307

    4      THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
           REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
           KRISHI BHAVAN, VALIYAKULAM P.O.,
           UDYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM-682 307

    5      THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
           KRISHI BHAVAN, VALIYAKULAM P.O.,
           UDYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM-682 307

           SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE. GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022
                                        2




                                T.R.RAVI, J.
                      ----------------------------------------
                        WP(C) NO.6756 OF 2022
                     -------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 27th .day of May, 2022

                              JUDGMENT

The writ petition has been filed challenging rejection of

Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner for removal of

his property from the Data Bank. According to the petitioner,

the property has been lying as 'purayidam' for the past

several years. The properties were purchased by the

petitioner in 1996 as per Exts.P1(a) and P1(b). The petitioner

has produced the report from the KSREC as Ext.P3. Ext.P3

would show that the plots were observed as paddy land in

1967 and that they were observed under mixed

vegetation/plantation in 2006 data. It is further stated that

the land use practice observed in 2006 continued in the

subsequent years in 2008, 2014 and 2018. Pending the writ

petition, the petitioner's counsel was issued with a copy of

the proceedings of the LLMC which has now been produced WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022

along with I.A No.1 of 2022 and I.A No.2 of 2022 as Exts.P4

and P4(a). Ext.P4 report of the Agricultural Officer shows

that there are numerous coconut trees around 35 years of

age seen on the bunds raised in East West direction of the

plot. It is stated that the bunds were formed by the soil

which had been taken from the land itself and hence

channels were formed in between these bunds where

stagnant water is seen. After referring to the KSREC report,

it is seen that the LLMC concluded that the property is seen

in a partially converted condition with bunds and water

channels in between the bunds and hence it is decided to

retain the property in the Data bank. Ext.P4(a) which is the

minutes of the meeting of the LLMC also shows that portions

of the property shows 'thodu' and 'chira'. The counsel for the

petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in K.K. Joy v.

Revenue Divisional Officer and others in

WP(C)No.33071 of 2019 to contend that what was

required is a finding that the property is a paddy land for the

purpose of inclusion in the Data Bank and not that in the

channel between on bunds where the coconut trees are WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022

planted, water logging is seen.

2. I find considerable force in the contention raised by

the counsel for the petitioner. The conclusion stated in

Ext.P4 does not appear to be warranted on the basis of the

facts which have been stated in paragraph Nos.3 and 5 of

Ext.P4. There is no finding by the LLMC that it is a paddy

land so as to justify the retention of the same in the Data

Bank.

3. In such circumstances, the decisions in Ext.P4 and

P4(a) that the properties are liable to be included in the Data

Bank are set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to

reconsider Ext.P2 application taking note of the observations

in Ext.P3 report of the KSREC which shows that the property

is seen as covered with mixed vegetation/plantation in the

2006 data and pass necessary orders. The reason that

channels have been formed in between bunds for the

purpose of maintaining a coconut plantation shall not be a

reason to conclude that the property is a paddy land or a wet

land. The 4th respondent shall also keep in mind the decision

in K.K.Joy (Supra). Necessary orders shall be passed within WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. The petitioner shall make available a copy of the

writ petition and a copy of the judgment in WP(C) No.33071

of 2019 to the 4th respondent for complying with the above

directions.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE sn WP(C) NO. 6756 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6756/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.06.2020 Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1053 OF 1996 OF S.R.O. TRIPUNITHURA Exhibit P1B TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1054 OF 1996 OF S.R.O. TRIPUNITHURA Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE LLMC ON 25.08.2017 WITH RECEIPT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30.12.2019 RELATING TO 210/2 AND 210/3 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 09-03-2022.

Exhibit P4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE LLMC MET ON 29-07-2020.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS      :    NIL

              //TRUE COPY//             PA TO JUDGE