VASU KALLAYI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ignorance of law and ignorance of the development of law through the judgments of the constitutional Courts are the main reasons for the accumulation of cases before this Court in the jurisdiction relating to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short "Act 2008"). The present case is a classic example of the same. A non-resident Indian who invested his hard earned money in Kerala is behind the red tape file of the respondents for the last two years to get clearance from the Act 2008. As per the Act 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officers are, in effect quasi judicial authorities. They should should be aware of the laws and the decisions of this Court which interpret those laws. The ignorance of law and misinterpretation of the judgments of this Court leads to several illegal orders by the Revenue Divisional Officers, who are the competent authority as per the Act, 2008, this in turn leads to unnecessary litigations before this court. Therefore, the 1st respondent should take appropriate steps to see that the Revenue Divisional Officers invoking powers under the Act, 2008 are doing their quasi judicial duties in accordance with law. If necessary, sufficient training should also be given to them regularly in consultation with the Advocate General, so that such things will not happen in the future.

(2.) The short facts of the present case are as follows: The petitioner was a non-resident Indian, who worked hard for his livelihood abroad. He decided to invest his hard earned money in his hometown/village. The petitioner purchased 5.86 Ares of land situated in R.S.No. 293/8A1 of Kolavallur Village as per the sale deed dtd. 16/7/1993 registered as document No.599 of 1993 of SRO Kallikkandy. He also purchased the extent of 3.03 Ares of land situated in R.S.No. 293/8A1 of Kolavallur Village as per registered document No. 671 of 1993 of SRO Kallikkandy. Ext.P1 is the possession certificate dtd. 17/8/2020 issued by the 4th respondent-Village Officer. As per the village records and title deeds of the properties, the classification of the petitioner's properties is 'nanja'.

(3.) The properties described in Ext.P1 were cultivated with coconut trees and there were other trees also. The petitioner's properties was not included in the data bank as per Sec. 5(4)(i) of the Act, 2008 either as paddy land or as wetland, even after studies were conducted by the authorities concerned.