GEORGE VARGHESE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P10 and P24 orders and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to utilize 07.94 Ares of his property comprised in survey no.1043/2 of Kothamangalam Village for non-agricultural purposes.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is the title holder in possession of a commercial plot having a total extent of 07.94 Ares of land comprised in survey no.1043/2 of Kothamangalam Village. Petitioner purchased 8.10 Ares of land by virtue of sale deed no.9274 of 2005 dtd. 23/3/2005 of SRO, Kothamangalam and a small portion thereof has been utilized for the western bypass road and what remains thereafter is 7.49 Ares of land which is lying as dry land for last several decades and was not a paddy land as on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act 2008"). In spite of the fact that the petitioner's land is not a paddy land as on the date of coming into force of the Act 2008, the same was erroneously included in the data bank and thereupon petitioner submitted an application in Form 5 before the 2nd respondent to exclude his land from the data bank. The Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) as per Ext.P4 recommended for exclusion of the petitioner's land from the data bank. Based on the same as per Ext.P5 order the 2nd respondent excluded the property from the data bank. Petitioner contends that after the issuance of Ext.P5 order, his land has become an unnotified land and for utilization of the land for commercial purposes petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application in Form 6 before the 2nd respondent. As per Ext.P8 order, Ext.P6 application was rejected taking a stand that the property is lying three feet below the road level and there is chance for water logging in the area. Challenging Ext.P8 order petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25394 of 2022 which was disposed of as per Ext.P9 order setting aside Ext.P8 and directing reconsideration of the application by the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P10 order has been issued reiterating the very same reason stated in Ext.P8. Aggrieved by Ext.P10, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.7835 of 2023 and while the said writ petition was pending consideration, the petitioner preferred Ext.P11 statutory appeal against Ext.P10 order before the 1st respondent and thereupon W.P.(C) No.7835 of 2023 was disposed of as per Ext.P12 judgment directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 appeal. In the hearing on Ext.P11 appeal, the petitioner appeared before the officer concerned and pointed out that Form 6 application submitted by other neighbouring land owners were allowed by the 2nd respondent as is evident from Exts.P13, P15, P17, P19, P21 and P22 orders. In spite of the production of the relevant documents in support of the contention of the petitioner, the 1st respondent without adverting to any of them, issued Ext.P24 order rejecting Ext.P11 appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the issuance of Exts.P10 and P24 orders that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned Government Pleader, who on the basis of instruction received submitted that the application has been rejected originally by Ext.P10 order on a finding that the property is lying three feet below the road level and that there is every chance for water logging if the conversion is permitted and further that the property has not been converted before 2008. It is also contended by the learned government pleader that the 1 st respondent while considering Ext.P11 appeal has also considered the said issues in a proper manner and rejected the appeal relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer that the property need not be removed from the data bank.