Lonappan vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 7052 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
   FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 20173 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         LONAPPAN,
         AGED 65 YEARS,
         S/O. VAREETH,
         VADAKKUMCHERY HOUSE,
         PARIYARAM,
         KUTTIKKAD P.O.,
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680724

         BY ADVS.
         SHAKTHI PRAKASH
         MUHASIN K.M.
         SUKANYA S.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
         1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
         AYYANTHOLE,
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
    2    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         IRINJALAKUDA,
         REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
         MINI CIVIL STATION,
         CHEMMANDA ROAD,
         IRINJALAKUDA,
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680125
    3    THE TAHSILDAR,
         CHALAKUDY TALUK OFFICE,
         3RD FLOOR,
         MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL COMPLEX,
         MAIN ROAD, OLD HIGH WAY,
         CHALAKUDY,
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680307
    4    THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
         PARIYARAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
         PARIYARAM,
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680721
 WP(C) No.20173 of 2023
                             :2 :


     5      THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
            PARIYARAM KRISHI BHAVAN,
            KUTTIKKAD ROAD,
            PARIYARAM,
            THRISSUR, PIN - 680724
     6      THE DIRECTOR,
            KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
            CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033


            BY ADVS.
            SMT. DEVISREE R. - GP
            SRI.VISHNU S, SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP      FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.06.2023,      THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.20173 of 2023
                                 :3 :




                         JUDGMENT

-----------------------

Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2023

The petitioner, who is owner of 3.24 Ares of land in

Survey N0.147/2-22 of Pariyaram Village of Chalakudy Taluk in

Thrissur District, is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3

proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda

whereby the petitioner's application for removing his land from

Data Bank stands rejected.

2. The petitioner states that the land of the petitioner is

not a paddy land. It was converted long ago, much prior to

2008 in which year the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

Wetland Act, 2008 was enacted. There are standing coconut

trees. As the petitioner wanted to use the land for other

purposes, an application was submitted in Form-5 of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 since WP(C) No.20173 of 2023

the land was included in Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional

Officer considered the application and rejected the same as per

Ext.P3.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P3

is devoid of any reasons supporting the decision. There is no

finding in Ext.P3 that the petitioner's land is paddy land. There

are no findings as to whether there are any paddy lands in the

nearby area. The petitioner's application has been rejected for

the sole reason that if the land is converted, the nearby plantain

and tapioca cultivations are likely to be affected. Ext.P3 cannot

stand the scrutiny of law, contends the counsel for the

petitioner.

4. Government Pleader entered appearance and

resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted

that on receipt of the application of the petitioner, a report was

sought from the Agricultural Officer. The Agricultural Officer

after a site visit has found that if the land is converted, it is likely

to affect agricultural activities in the nearby area. Free flow of

water will also be obstructed. It is taking into consideration the WP(C) No.20173 of 2023

fact finding report of the Agricultural Officer that the Revenue

Divisional Officer has passed Ext.P3 proceedings. Ext.P3

proceedings is legal and is not liable to be interfered with by

this Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

respondents.

6. The petitioner has 3.24 Ares of land in Pariyaram

Village of Chalakudy Taluk in Thrissur District. According to the

petitioner, though the land was in the nature of purayidom, it

was erroneously included in Data Bank of paddy land and

wetland. The petitioner submitted application in Form-5 of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

7. For rejecting the application of the petitioner, the

Revenue Divisional Officer relied on the report of the

Agricultural Officer. The report of the Agricultural Officer is that

there are four coconut trees which are 15 years old. If the

coconut trees are 15 years old, the necessary corollary is that

the land was converted before 15 years, which will ordinarily be WP(C) No.20173 of 2023

prior to the year 2008.

8. The further reason given in Ext.P3 is that the land is

low lying. Merely because a land is low lying, it cannot be

concluded that the land is a paddy land or that the land is fit for

paddy cultivation. The Agricultural Officer has found that there

is no paddy cultivation at present. The reason given by the

Agricultural Officer is that if the land is converted, there is likely

to be waterlogging and the free flow of water is likely to be

obstructed. The Agricultural Officer has found that it may result

in devastating plantain and tapioca cultivations in the nearby

areas.

9. The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

Wetland Act, 2008 deals with only Paddy Land and Wetland

and is intended to protect such lands. Ext.P3 does not disclose

that there are paddy lands in the nearby area. The likely

impact of allowing petitioner's Form-5 application on plantain

and tapioca cultivations, should not have been a reason to

deny the application of the petitioner submitted under the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. WP(C) No.20173 of 2023

In the afore circumstances, I am of the firm view that the

2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer shall reconsider the

application submitted by the petitioner. The writ petition is

disposed of setting aside Ext.P3 and directing the Revenue

Divisional Officer to reconsider the application submitted by the

petitioner afresh. Orders shall be passed within a further

period of two months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

sss WP(C) No.20173 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20173/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.07.2022.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.01.2023.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.