K.P. GANESH BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of 1 acre 45.93 cents of land in the Re.Sy.No.6/7 of the Thalassery Village. The properties had originally belonged to one Noushad C. The properties, according to the petitioner was a pucca garden land and is adjoining a Railway line and National Highway 66. Since the properties were initially included in the data bank on a survey conducted in the year 1935, the petitioner approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC). By Exhibits P1 and P2 orders, the LLMC issued orders excluding the properties from the data bank. By Ext.P3 order, the 2nd respondent ordered removal of 0.5906 ha. of the property from the data bank. This was followed by Exhibit P4 order by which the petitioner was directed to remit a sum of Rs.73,81,932.00 towards 30% of the fair value of the property. By Exhibit P5, the petitioner was directed remit a further sum of Rs.13,28,500.00. The petitioner remitted the amounts demanded as per Exhibits P4 and P5. The 2nd respondent issued Exhibit P6 permitting conversion of the nature of the property.

(2.) Within 3 weeks of issuance of Exhibit P6 order, a notice was issued to the petitioner, asking him to show cause why Exhibit P6 should not be revoked. The reason stated is that the previous owner Noushad had filed a revision petition before the State Government, against an order directing him to restore the properties to their original state which was still pending. Ext.P8 dated 01/10/2010 is a letter issued by the State Public Information Officer to Sri Noushad, informing him that there are no records available in the office to show that agricultural activity was being carried on in the property in question. Ext.P9 is a notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to Sri Noushad on 28/05/2008 asking him to remove the earth deposited in the land and to cultivate the land with paddy either personally or through any other person. Sri Noushad had challenged the direction in Ext.P9 before the Commissioner of Land Revenue and by order Ext.P10 dated 24/12/2009 the appeal was dismissed. It is seen from Ext.P10 that as per the title deed of Sri Noushad, the property is shown as garden land. The only reason stated in the cryptic order is that the applicant did not produce any evidence to show that the land is question was not utilised for cultivation. That is, the applicant was expected to prove a negative fact. Sri Noushad had preferred a revision petition against Ext.P10, which is the revision referred to in Ext.P7 notice. The 2nd respondent has thereafter issued Ext.P13 order on 25.11.2020, cancelling Ext.P6 order dated 7.10.2020. The reasons stated in Ext.P13 are that the petitioner has not complied with the water conservation measure before proceeding with any kind of construction activity and that the revision petition against the KLU order is pending. This was followed by another order Ext.P14 dated 1.12.2020, whereby the order Ext.P3 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding the removal of the property from the data bank was also cancelled. Ext.P14 also says the pendency of the revision petition as one of the reasons for cancellation. Another reason stated is that Ext.P3 was issued on condition that the properties had been converted prior to 2008, but that the said conversion is already found to be in contravention of law and ordered to be reversed by order dated 28/05/2008 by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner challenges Exts.P13 and P14 in this writ petition.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the orders are justified for the reason that the orders permitting conversion were issued without noticing the earlier orders issued under the KLU order directing the previous owner to remove the earth deposited in the property.