RAJESHKUMAR Vs. DIST. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.82 Ares of land in ReSurvey Nos.11 and 12 in Block No.47 (Old Survey No.161/3) of Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. It is submitted that the land along with a residential building was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2004.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted applications under the Kerala Land Utilization Order for using the land for other purposes and by Ext.P2 judgment dtd. 30/8/2017, the said application was directed to be considered. It is submitted that pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the LLMC had considered the matter and had placed Ext.P3 report before the District Collector pointing out that the property was dry land and that there is a house aged more than 28 years in the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P6 order had ultimately been passed granting permission to the petitioner under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization order on 23/1/2020 after Ext.P4 proceedings has been set aside by Ext.P5 judgment and a reconsideration had been ordered. Pursuant to Ext.P6 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 representation along with an application under Form A under Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for effecting the corrections/alterations in the Basic Tax Register and by Ext.P8 judgment, this Court had directed the consideration of the same. It is submitted that when the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for an implementation of the directions contained in Ext.P8 judgment, the petitioner was told that a data bank had been notified as on 10/2/2021 and that the petitioner's property, which was the subject matter of Ext.P6 order under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, had again been included in the notified data bank. It was therefore contended that the petitioner would have to seek exclusion from the data bank by filing an application in Form 5.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner's property is already covered by an order under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order as evident by Ext.P6, the property could not again have been included in the data bank since the property was not paddy land or wetland as on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the 2008 Act'). Ext.P11 judgment of this Court is relied on in support of this contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on a decision of this Court in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (5) KHC 490] to contend that the data bank to be prepared is the data bank of the cultivable paddy lands as on the date of coming into force of the Rules, that is, on 24/12/2008 and that the properties which are specifically covered by orders under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization order cannot be included in the same.