MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common issue arises in all these cases. All these writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner and the issue relates to the different extents of land in different survey numbers situated in different parts of a village. By Ext.P3 dtd. 5/1/2017, the petitioner applied for permission under Clause 6(a) of the Kerala Land Utilization order for utilization of his land for purposes other than agriculture. It is admitted that in the draft Data Bank the properties were shown as converted before 20 years. The petitioner had also submitted Ext.P5 application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee for removal of his land from the Data Bank. The petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C)Nos.23581/2018,23584/2018 & 23636/2018 seeking directions to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4 applications by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Local Level Monitoring Committee respectively. By Ext.P6 judgment, this Court issued directions to the Local Level Monitoring Committee to consider Ext.P5 and pass orders within three months and thereafter to communicate the said order to the Revenue Divisional Officer who has to pass consequential orders under the Kerala Land Utilization order. BY Ext.P7, the Local Level Monitoring Committee decided to delete the properties from the Data Bank. Thereafter by Ext.P8 erratum notification issued on 29/12/2020, the properties were deleted from the Data Bank. Since orders were not forthcoming on Ext.P3 application despite the removal of the properties from the Data Bank, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P9 application. The application was filed on 28/6/2021. On 29/6/2021, the Revenue Divisional Officer addressed the Agricultural Officer who is the 5th respondent in the writ petition asking him to obtain KSREC report to assess whether the property had been converted prior to 2008 and submit a report. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the directions contained in Ext.P11.

(2.) Heard Sri.Vincent K.C on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner contends that once the land has been removed from the Data Bank, there is no further requirement of any enquiry by calling for reports from the KSREC and verifying over again whether the land was liable to be included as a paddy land or wet land or whether it was liable to be removed from the Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer is only concerned with an application under Clause 6(2) which he will have to allow if he receives a report that the property involved is not a paddy land or a wet land and is not included in the Data Bank. The statute does not contemplate any fresh enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer after the concerned authority which is the LLMC had already examined the issue and decided to delete the property from the Data Bank. The report called for is hence extraneous for consideration of an application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization order. The counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgments of this Court in Beena Johnson v, Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and Another [2015 (3) KHC 727]. This Court in the said judgment held that in a case not coming under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, wherein orders seeking conversion of land is made under Clause 6(2), conversion cannot be given unless there is evidence to the effect that the land is cultivated for food crops for a period of three years. In paragraph No.3 of the judgment this Court found that without any evidence as to any cultivation of food crops in the land for three consecutive years and if the land is prescribed as 'nilam' in the BTR which was converted long back, not granting permission to utilize the land for purpose other than agriculture would create a stalemate. The Court further said that in cases where the land is converted prior to 2008 and not included in the Data Bank, there could be no direction either for resumption of the land to its original lie and nature nor could a direction to cultivate, for the reason that there is no evidence of cultivation for the three consecutive years. I am in complete agreement with the dictum laid down in the above judgment. On a consideration of the materials placed on record and after hearing the counsel on either side, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in these writ petitions.