SUDHEESH U. Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 order whereby the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 under Rule 4 (4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Rules 2008 was rejected.

(2.) Petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of 0.0481 hectares of land comprised in Old Survey No. 177/2, 7, resurvey block No. 3, resurvey No. 6/22 of Puthunagaram Village, Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad District. The petitioner submits that the property is a garden land situated in a residential area, surrounded by houses and road. Even though the property is garden land, it has been wrongly included as paddy land in the land data bank of Puthunagaram Grama Panchayat. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred an application in Form 5 seeking to delete the above property from the land data bank. The said application was rejected as per Ext P2 order for the reason that the property is lying fallow and there are paddy cultivation nearby and conversion will affect the flow of water and the environment. The petitioner submits that his property is a garden land which is in a residential area that has been converted long back, and these aspects were not properly considered while issuing Ext P2 order. Petitioner further submits that no site inspection was conducted or a report from the KSREC was obtained by the 1st respondent before issuing Ext P2 order. Only for the reason that the property is left fallow and there are paddy lands nearby, the application submitted by the petitioner cannot be rejected.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent mainly contending that the Local Level Monitoring Committee(LLMC) visited the property of the petitioner and from the apparent appearance of the property it was found to be paddy land. The fact that the property is surrounded by other properties and a PWD road is admitted in the counter affidavit. But based on Ext. R1(a) report of the LLMC, the application was rejected.