SATHEESHSANKARANNAMBOOTHIRI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and her late sister are the co- owners of 4.71 ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.109/1 (old Survey No.237/3) of Ettumanoor Village, covered under Ext.P1 sale deed. The property lies approximately 250 meters east of the Ettumanoor junction. Originally, the property had an extent of 32.77 ares, out of which the 1st respondent had acquired 43 cents for the Ettumanoor-Erattupetta State Highway and subsequently 12 ares for the Ettumanoor bypass project. Although the property is a converted land, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as paddy land and included it in the data bank. Consequently, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P9 application in Form 5 under Rule 4 (4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules', for brevity), to exclude the property from the data bank. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the application by Ext.P11 order, which was challenged before this Court. By Ext.P13 judgment, the 2nd respondent was directed to reconsider the application, taking into account the legal principles in the decisions referred in the judgment and the satellite images of the property. Contrary to the explicit directions, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned Ext.P15 order without due application of mind. The impugned order is ex facie illegal and is liable to be quashed.

(2.) The 2nd respondent in his statement has contended that, as per the site inspection conducted by the Agricultural Officer, the applied property is situated at the signal point of the Ettumanoor -Pala and Peroor- Pattithanam roads. The land lies at a lower elevation than the adjoining roads and is characterised as barren land filled with grass, colocasia, and without trees. Based on the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC') recommendations, the Form 5 application was rejected. In compliance with the directions in Ext.P13 judgment, the Agricultural Officer obtained a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre ('KSREC', for brevity). There is no illegality in the impugned order.

(3.) Heard, Sri. P. Haridas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.K. Preetha, the learned Senior Government Pleader.