M. T. THANKACHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 27th day of May, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order to the extent of partially rejecting Ext. P2 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short) and direct the third respondent to refund Rs.43,362.00, which was illegally collected from the petitioner while allowing his Form-6 application.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of 25.59 Ares of land covered by Ext. P1 basic tax receipt. The petitioner's land is lying contiguously and is bounded by compound walls. Out of the said property, 01.10 Ares of land is classified as 'purayidam', and the balance 24.49 Ares of property is classified as 'Nilam' in the basic tax register and included in the data bank. The petitioner converted the entire land as purayidam in 2002 and 2003. As the property has been erroneously classified as 'Nilam' in the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext. P2 application before the third respondent. By Ext. P4 proceedings, the third respondent partially allowed the application by ordering the removal of 0.0657 hectares in Survey No. 231/21 from the data bank, but declined the removal of 0.2449 hectares. Pursuant to the direction of the third respondent in Ext. P5 proceedings, the petitioner submitted a Form-6 application and remitted Rs.43,362.00 towards the conversion fee. Ext. P4 order, to the extent of partially rejecting the petitioner's application, and Ext. P5 order, directing the petitioner to remit the conversion fee, are illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) The third respondent has filed a statement, inter alia, stating that the petitioner has a title over an extent of 0.2559 hectares of land in Kannambra-1 Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad District. As per the village records, only the property comprised in Survey No. 231/8 is 'purayidam' and the rest of the property is 'Nilam'. Based on Ext. P2 application submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent had removed 0.0657 hectares of land from the data bank as per Ext. P4 order. The remaining land cannot be excluded from the data bank as it is paddy land. Again, as per the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner, Ext. P5 order was passed. It is true that the petitioner constructed a residential building in a certain extent of land. The Agricultural Officer has reported that the entire exclusion of the petitioner's property cannot be done, as it would affect the agricultural operation. Exts. P4 and P5 have been passed in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.