MANOHARAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the property comprised in Survey No.2/193 of Chokli Village in Kannur District covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The property was not included in the databank. The petitioner preferred Ext.P2 application under Form 6 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008, (for short 'the Act and the Rules') seeking permission for a change of user of the property.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 report submitted by the Village Officer along with a sketch clearly shows that there was no paddy land near the petitioner's property and that, the petitioner's property had coconut trees and other improvements. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) had, again called for a report from the Village Officer who then reported that the property was surrounded by mangroves. By Ext.P9, the RDO rejected the application preferred under Form 6 holding that the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) had taken a decision, as per Ext.P13, to include the property as a wetland in the databank. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order passed by the RDO under Form 6 on the ground that, none of the requirements needed for including the property as a 'wetland' arises in this case. He also submits that, at any rate, the decision of the LLMC, as seen from Ext.P13, to include the property in the databank is passed without hearing the petitioner and the inclusion of the property after it was not included earlier in the published databank, affects the proprietary rights of the petitioner. The factual positions were also not considered while passing Ext.P9 order as the reports of the revenue officials clearly show that there were no paddy fields near the property and there was no chance of the change of user affecting the water flow to nearby paddy fields. Ext.P12 report obtained from the Agricultural Officer was totally without jurisdiction as he had no authority to file a report in a case where the finding was that the subject property should be treated as a wetland.

(3.) The Government has filed a counter in which it is stated that the Village Officer found that the land was recently filled up and that the adjacent properties were wetlands apart from the existence of mangroves near the property. The matter was referred to the Agricultural Officer for getting the remarks of the LLMC on the points suggested by the Village Officer. The Agricultural Officer submitted a report on 15/12/2021 stating that the LLMC had inspected the property and found that the southern and western sides of the property were filled with mangroves and the said fields are marshy lands and that, the conversion of the land in question would adversely affect the ecological system of the nearby mangrove fields and hence, the LLMC decided to include the subject land in the databank as a wetland.