Sakeer Hussain T.P vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 8187 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945
                     WP(C) NO. 25075 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          SAKEER HUSSAIN T.P
          AGED 54 YEARS
          THACAHAMPOYYIL, VELLARICHALIL,
          THACHAPOYYIL P.O, THAMARASSERY
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673572.

          BY ADV UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)


RESPONDENTS:

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

    2     DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPALAM
          KOZHIKODE, PIN - 670320.

    3     REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER( SUB COLLECTOR)
          REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE CIVIL STATION,
          ERNAHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020.

    4     VILLAGE OFFICER
          VILLAGE OFFICE THIRUVAMBADI
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673603.

    5     LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
          THIRUVAMBADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
          KRISHI BHAVAN, THIRUVAMBADI - 673603.

          BY ADV.DEEPA N, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.25075 of 2023
                                    2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of August, 2023

`The petitioner, who is owner of 14.1645 Ares of property in

Thiruvambadi Village, is challenging Ext.P6 order of the Sub

Collector, Kozhikode, whereby the petitioner's request to remove

the petitioner's land from the Data Bank stands rejected.

2. The petitioner owns 14.1645 Ares of property

comprised in Survey No.26/14 of Thiruvambadi Village,

Thamarassery Taluk of Kozhikode District. According to the

petitioner, the land stood converted prior to the year 2008 when

the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

was enacted. The land is presently in the nature of 'Purayidam'.

3. However, when a Data Bank of Paddy Land and

Wetland was constituted under Section 5(4)(i) of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the W.P.(C) No.25075 of 2023

petitioner's land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioner

wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the

petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application in Form-5, invoking Rule

4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland

Rules, 2008.

4. The petitioner's Form-5 application has been rejected

by the Sub Collector as per Ext.P6 order. The petitioner

challenges Ext.P6 order. According to the petitioner, the Sub

Collector has rejected the petitioner's application solely based on

a report submitted by the Village Officer. The petitioner submits

that it is evident from the order that the Sub Collector has neither

made a Site inspection nor he has applied his mind while passing

the impugned order.

5. The property of the petitioner lies in the nature of

'Purayidam'. Had the Sub Collector harboured any doubt in this

regard, he should have ordered to obtain scientific data as W.P.(C) No.25075 of 2023

provided under Rule 4(4F) of the Rules, 2008 to ascertain the

nature of the land as it stood in the year 2008, contended the

petitioner. If the order of the Sub Collector is allowed to stand, it

will interfere with the constitutional right of the petitioner to freely

enjoy the land, which in turn will be violative of Article 300A of the

Constitution of India, urged the petitioner.

6. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted

the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all the

averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. When the

petitioner submitted Form-5 application to remove land from Data

Bank, the Sub Collector sought a report from the Village Officer.

7. Based on the findings, the Village Officer submitted a

Report. The said Report was made on the basis of a Site

inspection. The report specifically recommended that the land is

not to be removed from the Data Bank as it would defeat the very

purpose of the Act, 2008. The petitioner has not advanced any W.P.(C) No.25075 of 2023

legal reason to unsettle the decision taken by the Sub Collector,

the Government Pleader insisted.

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

the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

9. The petitioner owns 14.1645 Ares of property

comprised in Survey No.26/14 of Thiruvambadi Village,

Thamarassery Taluk of Kozhikode District. The petitioner's land

was included in the Data Bank. The petitioner wanted to use the

land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4

application in Form-5.

10. I have perused Ext.P6 order of the Sub Collector,

Kozhikode. The Sub Collector, Kozhikode, has rejected the Form-

5 application of the petitioner, relying on a report dated 25.06.2022

of the Village Officer. Ext.P6 would indicate that the Village Officer

has reported that there is a building constructed one year ago and

there are trees planted forty years ago in the land. There is a teak W.P.(C) No.25075 of 2023

wood tree of 15 years of age. Four coconut trees are standing in

the land, having more than 30 years of age. Jackfruit tree and

mango trees are also of more than 20 years of age. However, the

Village Officer has reported that the removal of the land from the

Data Bank would adversely affect free flow of water and the

environment in the area. It is based on the said report of the

Village Officer that the Sub Collector has rejected the application

of the petitioner.

11. The fact remains that there are large number of trees

which are aged more than 20 years. That necessarily indicates

that there is a strong likelihood of the land being converted prior to

the year 2008. The petitioner would point out that in the Data Bank

also, it has been stated that the land stands converted 35 years

ago. In such circumstances, it would have been only just and

proper for the Sub Collector to obtain scientific data before taking

a decision on the application of the petitioner. W.P.(C) No.25075 of 2023

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of setting

aside Ext.P6 and directing that if the petitioner submits an

application to the Agricultural Officer for obtaining KSREC Report

paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, then the

Sub Collector, Kozhikode, shall reconsider the Form-5 application

of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, taking note

of KSREC Report also, within a further period of two months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C) No.25075 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25075/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.8.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DATA BANK PUBLISHED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM.5 DATED 31.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.3.2023 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT