SALOMI JOSEPH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P3 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).

(2.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of 18.21 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.128/8-1 of the Veliyannur Village in Kottayam District, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a garden land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the land as paddy land and included it in the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application, to remove her property from the data bank. The 2 nd respondent, solely relying on the reports of the additional 4th respondent and the Village Officer, has held that the petitioner's property cannot be removed from the data bank. In fact, the 2 nd respondent has not independently assessed the nature, lie, and character of the petitioner's property as on 12/8/2008, the date the Act came into force. The 2 nd respondent ought to have also called for a report from the KSREC to have assessed the character of the property as contemplated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The entire decision making process leading to Ext.P4 order is erroneous and liable to be quashed. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) The 1st respondent has filed a statement, inter alia, stating that as per the report of the additional 4 th respondent, the petitioner's property is low lying paddy land and is water logged. Therefore, the petitioner's property cannot be removed from the data bank. Moreover, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) by report dtd. 11/6/2024 has recommended not to remove the land from the data bank. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.