Kerala High Court
Backwater Ripples Private Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2024
1
WP(C) No.23594 of 2018 2024:KER:83119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO.23594 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
BACKWATER RIPPLES PRIVATE LTD.,
VELLAPPALLY BUILDINGS, MUTTAMBALAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MATHEW ALEX VELLAPPALLY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ROY CHACKO
SRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
2
WP(C) No.23594 of 2018 2024:KER:83119
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE,
KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONOTORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
BY SMT.SONY K.B., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.10.2024,
THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
WP(C) No.23594 of 2018 2024:KER:83119
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a private limited company, has filed the
captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P9 order dated
03.07.2018 issued by the Local Level Monitoring Committee,
rejecting a request made by the petitioner for removing
certain properties from the data bank.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ
petition are as follows:
The petitioner purchased 36.17 Ares in Re-survey
No.170/9/3 in Block No.12 of Kumarakom Village, Kottayam
Taluk, and has been paying tax with respect to the said
property. The said purchase was effected during 2007, and it
is pointed out in the writ petition that in the draft data bank
(Ext.P6), the property in question was shown with remarks
"above 15 years" as regards the approximate year of
conversion. However, in the final data bank at Ext.P6(a), the
property is shown as a "wetland." In such circumstances, the
WP(C) No.23594 of 2018 2024:KER:83119
petitioner approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee
by filing Ext.P5 for deletion of the property in question from
the data bank. The petitioner was also before this Court, and
by Ext.P7 judgment, this Court directed the Local Level
Monitoring committee to decide on Ext.P5 with reference to
the judgment of this Court in Suraj v. State of Kerala [2018
(1) KLT 1]. On the basis of the afore direction, Ext.P9
proceedings were issued, refusing to delete the property in
question from the data bank.
3. It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ
petition is filed by the petitioner herein.
4. During the pendency of this writ petition, this Court
had appointed an Advocate Commissioner for reporting as
regards the lie and nature of the property in question. The
Advocate Commissioner has also filed a report dated
26.09.2024, essentially pointing out that the property is seen
covered with wild plants, including wild badam trees and
WP(C) No.23594 of 2018 2024:KER:83119
bushes, and that at present, it is not possible to have any
cultivation of paddy in the property in question. It is also
found in the Commission Report that the property appears to
have been converted like that for quite some time.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
6. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ
petition is as regards the findings contained in in Ext.P9. In
Ext.P9, the claim made by the petitioner has been rejected,
however, without having any reference to the endorsement in
the draft data bank. A reference to the draft data bank shows
that the property was converted almost 15 years back. The
report of the Advocate Commissioner also points out that the
property is not suitable for paddy cultivation at present.
7. In Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Mumbai and Others v. State of Kerla and Others [2014
(1) KHC 685], this Court held as under:
WP(C) No.23594 of 2018 2024:KER:83119
"37. An authority, which has been conferred with the
functions of preparing a Data Bank with the details of the
cultivable paddy land and wetland, within its area of
jurisdiction, with the aid of modern technology and
institutions of Science and Technology, under subclause
(i) of sub-section (4) of S.5, could, at any time, look into
the ground realities and decide upon the suitability for
prospective cultivation of such lands. The inclusion is
made on the basis of satellite pictures and Revenue
records as also maps prepared by the various institutions
of the State. After such inclusion, looking at the ground
realities emphasised by the binding precedents of this
Court, if the preservation of lands as such, is found to be
impracticable, the authority could delete such lands from
the Data bank. In the instant case, the Data Bank,
admittedly, has not been notified. Again it has to be
noticed; as far as back in Jafarkhan (supra), a Division
Bench of this Court cautioned the State Government and
brought to its notice the obvious anomalies in the
legislation, which the Government has not thought fit till
today to address or bring to the notice of the Legislature
or make sufficient amends in mitigation of the obvious
injustice pointed out by this Court. It is for all the above
reasons that this Court holds that when the LLMC has the
power to prepare the Data Bank including the cultivable
paddy lands, definitely it would have the power to look at
whether the same is suitable for cultivation and whether
WP(C) No.23594 of 2018 2024:KER:83119
prospective cultivation is feasible and whether such
proposition is financially viable. That in effect is the dictum
laid down in Castlerock Projects and Developers and
Shafeeque (both supra). These are factors upon which the
LLMC could again put to use the services of the institutions
and Boards referred to in sub-clause (i) of sub-section (4)
of S.5. In such circumstances, there shall be a direction
to the petitioners to approach the LLMC with an
application to reconsider the inclusion of the subject lands
in the draft Data Bank prepared by the LLMC, for the
properties within its jurisdiction. The LLMC shall look at
the binding precedents as also the observations of this
Court and in accordance with law and keeping in mind the
spirit of the enactment, consider the applications and pass
speaking orders with respect to each of the petitioners,
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
the application. The petitioners shall file proper
applications within a period of three weeks from today."
Thus, while deciding a question as regards the exclusion of
certain properties from the data bank, the LLMC is supposed
to consider whether the property in question is 'suitable' for
cultivation. However, in the case at hand, it appears that the
WP(C) No.23594 of 2018 2024:KER:83119
LLMC has not approached the above question in the correct
perspective.
8. To the same effect is the judgment in Joy K.K. v.
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam &
Others [2021 (1) KHC 540] wherein this Court followed the
judgment in Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Mumbai and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2014
(1) KHC 685] and directed the corrections to be carried out
by the LLMC in the data bank, after noticing the lie of the
property in question.
In the light of the above, I am of the opinion that the
findings in Ext.P9 cannot be sustained. The petitioner is
entitled to succeed. Resultantly, this writ petition would stand
allowed, setting aside Ext.P9 issued by the 5th respondent and
further directing the 5th respondent to pass orders on Ext.P5
afresh after making reference to the report of the Advocate
Commissioner dated 26.09.2024 as also the principles laid
WP(C) No.23594 of 2018 2024:KER:83119
down in the judgments referred to earlier. The afore exercise
to be finalised by the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
ln
WP(C) No.23594 of 2018 2024:KER:83119
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23594/2018
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
03/04/2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED JANUARY 2018.
EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.DCKTM/5730/2016/E9 DATED 20/12/2016
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/06/2018
INTIMATING HEARING ON 28/06/2018
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
24/08/2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE LLMC
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DRAFT
DATA BANK
EXHIBIT P6(A): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE NOTIFIED
DATA BANK
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN
WPC.NO.21323 AND 21641 OF 2018 DATED
29/06/2018
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/07/2018,
WP(C) No.23594 of 2018 2024:KER:83119
EXHIBIT P8(A): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/07/2018.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/07/2018
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
