Kerala High Court
Nabeesa vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2024
2024:KER:78442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18564 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
NABEESA,
AGED 69 YEARS
W/O. ABU, ALIYATHODI HOUSE, KACHERIKUNNU,
CHERPULASSERY, CHERPULASSERY.P.O., PALAKKAD,
PIN - 679503
BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
P.K.SUBHASH
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
1 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (NCA), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, NEAR FORT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
2
PIN - 678001
THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3 OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
SMT.DEVI SHRI.R- (G.P.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:78442
WP(C) NO.18564/23
2
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
............................................................
W.P(C) No. 18564 of 2023
....................................................................
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order, rejecting the
application preferred by him under Form-6 of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for
short, 'the Act and the Rules'). The said order has been
affirmed in the appeal by Ext.P10 order.
2. The petitioner is stated to be the owner and in
possession of the property of an extent of 12.66 Ares of
property in Block No.42, R.S No.217/7 of Cherpulassery
Village, Ottappalam Taluk. Since the property was included
in the revenue records, describing the same as a paddy field,
the petitioner filed the application under Form-6 under the
the Act and the Rules. The reason stated in Ext.P7 for
rejecting the application is that the petitioner's property is
lying at a lower level and that a decision has to be taken
2024:KER:78442
after getting a report from the Agricultural Officer. Ext.P7
also mentioned that the property is lying fallow and that it
was on a mistake, that the property was not included in the
data bank. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal to the
District Collector, Ext.P7 order was affirmed in Ext.P10,
stating that the property is likely to get waterlogged during
rainy seasons and that it is on a mistake that the property
was left from being included in the data bank.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on
Ext.P6 report of the Village Officer, which clearly states that
there is no paddy cultivation in the land in question. In the
instant case, obviously, the reports of the Village Officer and
the Agricultural Officer differ and are contradictory to each
other. The reasons stated in the impugned orders that the
property is lying at a lower level and that it gets
waterlogged cannot be a reason for including the same in
the data bank as held by this Court in the judgments
reported in Mather Nagar Residents Association and
Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others
2024:KER:78442
[2020 (2) KHC 94] and George Varghese V. District
Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93], which held that merely for the
reason that the property is lying fallow and the water gets
logged during the rainy season or otherwise due to the low-
lying nature of the property, the same cannot be a reason for
treating the same as a paddy land or wetland under the
provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is also to be noticed
that the consideration in a Form-6 application is only as to
whether the change of nature of land will affect the free flow
of water to the nearby paddy fields, if any and such
reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation of paddy
or other crops, if any, in the adjoining land.
4. Under the said circumstances, the impugned
orders are quashed. There will be a direction to the 3 rd
respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer/ authorised officer to
re-consider the Form-6 application submitted by the
petitioner in the light of the observations made above and
the principles laid down by this Court in George Varghese
V. District Collector, noted above. Fresh orders will be
2024:KER:78442
passed within three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
The impugned order is quashed and the Writ Petition
is allowed as above.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
JJ
2024:KER:78442
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18564/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
Exhibit P1 3120/1984 DATED 10.10.1984
A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.
Exhibit P2 KL09040705688/2020 DATED 29.07.2020
AA TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
Exhibit P3 CERTIFICATE NO. 55704140 DATED 17.04.2021
A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA
BANK IN GAZETTE NO. TP1-6493/2020 DATED
Exhibit P4
27.07.2020
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
Exhibit P5 15.01.2021 UNDER FORM 6
A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE
Exhibit P6 VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 13.04.2021
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
Exhibit P7 RDOOTP/1784/2021-G1 DATED 12.08.2022
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL UNDER SECTION
27 B OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
Exhibit P8
AND WET LAND ACT 2008
A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
Exhibit P9 23.01.2023 IN W.P.(C)NO. 2199 OF 2023
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCPKD/757/2023-LRG3 DATED 17.03.2023
Exhibit P10
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
