GRACY VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioners is as follows:- The petitioners are the absolute owners of the properties admeasuring 95.250 cents in Sy.No.78/5 and 28.660 cents in Sy.No.85/2 in Block No.17 in Kumbalam Village obtained by them as per Sale Deed No.513/2006 and 12.350 cents and 10 cents in Sy.No.78/6 in Block No.17 of the Kumbalam Village obtained as per Sale Deed Nos.1031/2010 and 5084/2005 respectively of the SRO, Maradu. Though the entire properties are lying as converted land, when the draft data bank was prepared, the properties in Sy.Nos.78/5 and 78/6 of the Kumbalam Village were mistakenly shown as 'nilam'. Also in the new data bank register prepared in the year 2013, the properties were wrongly described as 'nilam', though those were shown as 'purayidam' in the revenue records. On knowing about the mistake, the petitioners submitted Ext.P1 representation before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (for short 'LLMC') to conduct a site inspection and to correct the mistake in the data bank register. The inaction on the part of the fourth respondent constrained the petitioners to file WP(C) No.10985/2016 and as per Ext.P2 judgment dtd. 22/3/2016, this Court directed the LLMC to find out whether the land in question can be classified as paddy land or nilam or wetland as on the date of enactment of the Act 28 of 2008 and if it cannot be classified either as paddy land or nilam or wetland, necessary correction shall be carried out in the draft data bank. In pursuance of Ext.P2 judgment, the LLMC inspected the properties and as per Ext.P3 proceedings, decided to correct the petitioners' properties admeasuring 95.25 cents in Re-Sy.No.78/5 and 22.350 cents in ReSy.No.78/6 in Block No.17 of the Kumbalam Village as converted land. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation under clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order,1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLU Order') seeking permission to use their property for other purposes other than for cultivation. On receipt of Ext.P4 representation, it was informed by the second respondent District Collector, as per Ext.P5, that the representation was forwarded to LLMC for necessary correction. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioners have approached this Court with the above writ petition.

(2.) This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 9/10/2017 along with other writ petitions, which were filed stating that the properties owned by them, which are not liable to be included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), have been included in the data bank concerned and the prayer in the writ petitions was for appropriate direction for removal of the same. The said writ petitions were disposed of directing the LLMC under the statute to consider the application for removal of those properties from the data bank in the manner indicated therein. The case of the petitioners, on the other hand, was concerning the inaction on the part of the competent authority under the KLU order in considering the application preferred by the petitioners under clause 6 of the KLU order, since there was already a report by the LLMC.

(3.) Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed R.P No. 49/2018 before this Court for review of the Judgment dtd. 09/10/2017. This Court found that the property of the petitioners in the writ petition is not one included in the data bank prepared under the Act and the writ petition preferred by the petitioners should not have been disposed of along with the batch of writ petitions. Thus the review Petition was allowed and the common judgment, in so far as it relates to WP (C ) No.18591 of 2007 was recalled.