Manikandan V vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 29645 Ker

Kerala High Court

Manikandan V vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 17 October, 2024

                                                       2024:KER:77370
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

    THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946

                          WP(C) NO. 24579 OF 2023

PETITIONER:

            MANIKANDAN V.
            AGED 41 YEARS
            S/O. VELLIYANKARI, RAJESWARI BHAVANAM, KALMANDAPAM
            P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678013

            BY ADVS.
            JACOB SEBASTIAN
            WINSTON K.V
            ANU JACOB
            DIVYA R. NAIR



RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD
            OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD,
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678001

    2       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
            MARUTHA ROAD VILLAGE, MARUTHA ROAD P.O., PALAKKAD
            DISTRICT., PIN - 678007

    3       THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
            MARUTHA ROAD, PANCHAYATH, MARUTHA ROAD P.O., PALAKKAD
            DISTRICT., PIN - 678007

            SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 24579 OF 2023

                                 2

                                                     2024:KER:77370
                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P2, an order passed under

form 5, Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The

petitioner had approached this Court challenging an order passed,

rejecting the application to delete property from the data bank. By

Ext.P4 judgment dated 19.12.2018 in WP(C) No. 29546/2018 this

Court directed reconsideration of the application submitted by the

petitioner, after considering the report of KSREC and after hearing

the petitioner and ultimately Ext.P10 order was passed rejecting

the request to delete the property from the data bank stating that

the land was not converted prior to 2008, that any conversion

would affect the natural flow of water, that it would affect the

neighbouring paddy cultivation, that the property is fit for paddy

cultivation though it is lying fallow land. The Revenue Divisional

Officer had also considered the report of the Agricultural Officer

and found that the property in question is part of a larger

padashekharam. Taking note of the above the Revenue Divisional

Officer found that the property in question need not be removed

from the data bank.

2. A Statement has been filed on behalf of the Government WP(C) NO. 24579 OF 2023

2024:KER:77370 wherein it is stated that the property having an extent of 27cents

appeared to be a fallow land that the same is a part of a large

padashekharam and that the land is feasible for cultivating paddy.

It is also stated that one side of the property is a large canal and

the other side has been cultivated with paddy. It is also stated that

there are no buildings, structures or roads around the property.

The Government had also produced Ext.R3(a) photographs

showing the lie and nature of the property. It was also found that

the land is lying at a lower level and during rainy seasons, there

can be an overflow and all the surrounding areas would sink in

water. It is also stated that if the conversion is allowed, it would

also encourage the other farmers to lay their land as fallow land,

and finally the whole area of paddy land will have been excluded in

future. Reference is also made to the KSREC report which says

that the land was lying fallow in 2006, 2011 and 2015. It is also

stated that all the parameters laid down by this Court in judgment

in Joy K.K v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam

and Others [2021(1)KHC 540] were considered before taking the

decision.

3. I have heard Sri. Jacob Sebastian learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri. Preetha K.K learned Senior Government Pleader WP(C) NO. 24579 OF 2023

2024:KER:77370

4. It is one of the few cases where the authority concerned

had passed orders taking note of the requirements of the Act. It is

found that the property is part of a larger padashekharam holding,

there is a canal existing on one side and there are paddy fields

neighbouring the property. There is also a finding that the land can

be used for paddy cultivation.

Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the

findings entered in Ext.P10 are flawed in any manner warranting

judicial review at the hands of this Court. I do not find any merit in

the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE

ASH WP(C) NO. 24579 OF 2023

2024:KER:77370 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24579/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED AUGUST 24, 2017 IN W.P(C) NO.1995/2017 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED JULY 3, 2018 ISSUED BY THE KSREC IN RELATION TO THE PETITIONER'S PLOT

Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JULY 28, 2018 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT

Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2018 IN WPC NO. 29546/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 5, 2019 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT

Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER MARUTHARODE VILLAGE

Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED OCTOBER 05, 2020 IN WPC NO. 4387/2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.03.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED MARCH 28, 2023 IN W.P(C) NO. 10581/2023 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Exhibit-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY