JOSE T.V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that, the subject property though continues to be described as paddy land/nilam in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), has been converted as garden land/purayidam much prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008). The property has been initially included in the draft Data Bank as partly converted land. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed Ext.P-2 application dated 11.9.2017 before the 4 th respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) for excluding the subject property from the draft Data Bank. In the meanwhile it appears that the 2nd respondent District Collector has passed Ext.P- 5 order dated 15.1.2019 under Section 13 of the 2008 Act, directing the petitioner to restore the subject property as paddy land. Contending that Ext.P-5 is illegal, the petitioner has filed Ext.P-6 revision petition dated 22.4.2019 before the 1st respondent State Government. Since, no action has been taken by the 4 th respondent LLMC on Ext.P-2 application, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing WP(C).No.30180/2018. This Court as per Ext.P-4 judgment rendered on 14.9.2018 has disposed of WP(C).No.30180/2018 by directing the respondent LLMC to ensure that the satellite pictures and expert opinion of the 6 th respondent Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) are obtained, and then to follow the requisite procedure and pass orders on Ext.P-2 application within the time limit mentioned in the said judgment. Since no action was taken to comply with the directions in Ext.P-4 judgment, the petitioner was constrained to file a Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.1389/2020 (arising out of Ext.P-4 judgment in WP(C).No.30180/2018). That, it was only during the pendency of the said Contempt of Court case that the respondent LLMC has secured Ext.P-7 expert report and satellite pictures from the 6th respondent KSREC. The complaint of the petitioner is that, without conducting any inspection with prior notice to the petitioner, the 4th respondent LLMC has rejected Ext.P-2 application as per the impugned Ext.P-8 order dated 21.1.2020 on the specious ground that the satellite pictures as per Ext.P-7 would show that the subject property is in the draft Data Bank.

(3.) It appears that, Ext.P-8 order has been passed by the 4th respondent LLMC during the pendency of abovesaid Contempt of Court Case and only after the property included in the final Data Bank as paddy land. The main contention of the petitioner is that, Ext.P-7 expert report and satellite pictures provided by the 6th respondent KSREC would clearly show that the findings in Ext.P-8 are without any factual foundation, and that Ext.P-7 would show that the subject property has been converted prior to the 2008 Act. Further that, inspection has not been conducted by the 4th respondent before taking a decision as per Ext.P-8. The petitioner would point out that, since the subject property has now been included in the final Data Bank as paddy land, the 3rd respondent RDO will have the jurisdiction to consider the application for excluding the said property from the Land Data Bank, in terms of Rule 4D of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules framed under the 2008 Act, and hence the petitioner has filed Ext.P-11 application in Form No.5 on 8.6.2020 before the 3rd respondent RDO for excluding the said property from the final Data Bank.