Hema Anil vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 977 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 27TH POUSHA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 40986 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

         HEMA ANIL
         AGED 48 YEARS
         W/O ANIL KUMAR,
         PUTHUVATHU HOUSE,
         KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O.,
         PIRAVOM, PIN - 686664

         BY ADV. CHITRA JOHNSON


RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
         REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
         GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
         PIN - 695001
    2    REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
         REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
         PATTIMATTOM - MUVATTUPUZHA RD,
         MUVATTUPUZHA, KERALA,
         PIN - 686673
    3    LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
         MANEED GRAMAPANCHAYATH
         REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
         PIN - 682308
    4    AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
         KRISHI BHAVAN, MANEED,
         PIN - 682308

         BY SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP    FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.01.2023,      THE COURT ON THE SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.40986/2022
                                :2 :




                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2023

The petitioner is owner of 2.83 Ares of land in Re-

Survey Nos.358/3-4 and 356/2D-7 of Maneed Village,

Muvattupuzha Taluk in Ernakulam District.

2. The petitioner states that the adjoining land is also

belongs to the petitioner which is a dry land. The entire area

is covered by dry land. However, unfortunately, this 2.83 Ares

of land alone is described as paddy land in Revenue records.

The land was included in the Data Bank also.

3. The petitioner wanted to use the land for other

purposes. Therefore, an application was submitted for

removing the land from the Data Bank invoking Rule 4(d) of

the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,

2008.

WP(C) No.40986/2022

4. The petitioner's application stands rejected as per

Ext.P1 order dated 24.11.2022 of the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Muvattupuzha.

5. The petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order

passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is a non-speaking

order. One of the reasons provided in Ext.P1 order for

rejecting the application is that there is a well situated in the

property. The said well was constructed only in the year 2020

for the purpose of drawing drinking water. That is not a good

reason to reject the application submitted under the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

6. The petitioner would further submit that the

adjoining land is admittedly a garden land and it is so

described in the Revenue records also. There is a drinking

water packaging unit functioning in the land. There is no

paddy cultivation anywhere near the area. Therefore, unless

Ext.P1 order is set aside, the petitioner will be put to untold

hardship and loss.

WP(C) No.40986/2022

7. Senior Government Pleader entered apperance

and resisted the writ petition. The Senior Government Pleader

controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner

in the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is

submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has considered

a detailed report of the Agricultural Officer, Maneed for

passing the order. The Agricultural Officer caused site

inspection in the area and it was decided not to remove the

land from the Data Bank.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the

respondents.

9. From the pleadings, it is evident that 2.83 Ares of

land which is the subject matter of this writ petition and the

adjoining land belong to the petitioner. The adjoining land is

described as purayidom in the Revenue records. All other

adjoining lands in the area are purayidom. An industrial unit is

functioning in that area. It is the specific case of the petitioner

that there is no paddy cultivation anywhere near the area. A WP(C) No.40986/2022

well was constructed in the land for the purpose of drinking

water.

10. Ext.P1 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer does

not reflect the afore facts. Ext.P1 order was passed only on

the basis of the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer. In

the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the Revenue

Divisional Officer shall reconsider Form-5 application

submitted by the petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of setting

aside Ext.P1 and directing the 2nd respondent-Revenue

Divisional Officer to reconsider and pass appropriate orders

afresh on the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner

within a period of two months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

sss WP(C) No.40986/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40986/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2022 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY.