RAMACHANDRAN Vs. SALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned appeals arise from the judgment dtd. 21/11/2024 in WP(C) No.20360 of 2021 and the order dtd. 27/3/2025 in RP No.184 of 2025 respectively.

(2.) The appellant is the additional 3rd respondent who is stated to be owner of the property, adjacent to the parcel of paddy land having an extent of 36.02 Ares, owned by the 1st respondent in Survey No.376/1A(1) and 376/1(A)2 of Alangad Village in Paravoor Taluk. It is the case of the appellant that, on the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act'), the above mentioned property of the 1st respondent was not included in the Data Bank, though it was allegedly recommended by the Committee constituted under the Act. The appellant's attempt to include the property in Data Bank resulted in Ext.R3(a) communication to the Agricultural Officer to include the land in Data Bank. It was also stated to be in the agenda of the Local Level Monitoring Committee ( for short 'LLMC') convened on 13/10/2014 and a decision was taken to finalise the proceedings after conducting a site inspection. However, that did not fructify.

(3.) In such circumstances, the appellant preferred a complaint before the District Collector which was forwarded to the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam, who in turn forwarded it to the Agricultural Officer, Kadungallur to include the same in the Data Bank. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent, RDO, took a decision to include the property in the Data Bank on 26/2/2020 and Ext.P22 final Data Bank evidences that the property is included in the Data Bank. That was challenged by the 1st respondent herein in the writ petition. By allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge declared that the inclusion of the property in the Data Bank is wrong and directed the 1st respondent to approach the appropriate authorities under Sec. 27A, but there was no declaration regarding Ext.P22. The Review Petition preferred by the 1st respondent against judgment dtd. 21/11/2024 was considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge decided to quash Ext.P22, by which the property in question was included in the Data Bank, by modifying the judgment. It is against the judgment in the writ petition as modified by the order in the Review Petition that the captioned writ appeals are preferred.