LAWS(KER)-2024-2-177

NIKKIE VARUGHESE JOHN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

Decided On February 12, 2024
Nikkie Varughese John Appellant
V/S
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of 18.10 Ares (44.72 cents) of land comprised in Re.Sy Nos.274/12 and 274/13 in Block No.39 of Puthencruz village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, as per sale deed No. 279 of 2006 dtd. 11/1/2006 of Puthencruz SRO. The said land is classified as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register and included as paddy land in the Data Bank published under Sec. 5 (4) (i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Act, 2008'].

(2.) The petitioner filed an application dtd. 29/11/2021 before the 1st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to remove the said property from the Data Bank. The 2nd respondent, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), by Ext. P2, reported that the land was converted before 2008 and recommended to exclude the property from the Data Bank. On the basis of Ext. P2 report, the RDO passed Ext. P3 order dtd. 24/1/2022 excluding the property from the Data Bank as per Rule 4(4F) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Rules, 2008'].

(3.) Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext. P4 application in Form No.6 under Sec. 27A of Act, 2008 before the RDO for change of nature of the land. On receipt of Ext. P4 application, the RDO called for a report from the Village Officer, who submitted Ext. P5 report recommending to allow the application on payment of fees. However, the RDO issued Ext. P7 order dtd. 21/2/2023 rejecting Ext. P4 application in Form No.6 and recalling Ext. P3 order by which the land was removed from the Data Bank. Ext. P7 states that, as per the site inspection report of the Junior Superintendent, the subject land is lying 1.5 meters lower than the roads and the property on the southern side, and the land has not been converted. The petitioner impugnes Ext. P7 order on the ground that the RDO lacks jurisdiction to review Ext. P3 order passed under the proviso to Sec. 5(4)(i) of Act, 2008, that too, in a proceedings under Sec. 27A of the Act, 2008.