NIYAS Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In W.P.(C) No.36700 of 2022, the petitioner is in title and possession of 0.1011 hectares of land obtained as per Ext P1 settlement deed. Even though the property was lying as dry land, the same was erroneously included in Ext.P2 data bank. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Ext P4 application under Form 5 before the 6th respondent.

(2.) In W.P.(C) No.36705 of 2022, the petitioner is in title and possession of 0.0670 hectares of land obtained as per Ext P1 settlement deed. Even though the property was lying as dry land, the same was erroneously included in Ext.P2 data bank. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Ext P4 application under Form 5 before the 6th respondent.

(3.) Aggrieved by non-consideration of Ext P4 applications, petitioners have approached this Court filing W.P.(C) Nos.12518 and 12707 of 2022, which were disposed of as per Ext.P6 common judgment dtd. 20/6/2022 directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision on the applications. The said applications submitted by the petitioners have been rejected as per Ext.P11 order produced in both the writ petitions. Petitioners in both the cases have a specific contention that a perusal of Ext.P7 minutes of the 6th respondent will reveal that adjacent land, similarly situated to that of the petitioners' land in resurvey Nos. 258/38, 258/39, 258/41 and 258/42 of Block 44 of Vadakanchery 1 Village of Alathur Taluk were removed from the data bank as per the decision in the meeting of the 6th respondent held on 17/9/2021. Petitioners relying on Ext.P9 further submit that even building permits have been issued for the construction of residential building in similarly situated lands. Petitioners also submit that none of the parameters to be considered while taking a decision on a Form 5 application has not been considered by the 2nd respondent while issuing Ext.P11 order. Petitioners have also taken a contention that a perusal of Ext.P2, relevant pages of the data bank, would show that there is a building in existence in the property owned by the petitioners and therefore the land is to be treated as an unnotified land as provided in Sec. 2 (xviiA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (in short, "Act, 2008") and therefore not even an application under Form 5 is required. To substantiate the contentions, petitioners rely on the judgments in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala and others, 2020 (5) KHC 490, Anand Louis v. Haaris Rasheed, 2022 (1) KHC 554, Habeeb Rahman v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur and another and the decision in Matha Nagar Resident Association and another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others, 2020 (2) KHC 1994. Yet another contention raised by the petitioners is that while issuing Ext P11 order whereby Form 5 applications submitted by the petitioners were rejected, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and therefore the said orders have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with.