GEORGE VARGHESE Vs. SUB COLLECTOR, RDO OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 4.82 Ares comprised in Re.Sy.No.565/2-6 in Block 14 of Kaviyoor Village. The petitioner purchased the said property as per Ext.P1 sale deed dtd. 23/5/2013. According to the petitioner, the said property was reclaimed much prior to the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. However, when the Data Bank was prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Paddy land Act), the said property was included therein by describing it as 'Nikathupurayidam', which means that reclaimed paddy land. Ext.P3 is the notification of Data Bank containing the description of the property.

(2.) Therefore, as the property of the petitioner finds a place in the Data Bank, he submitted Ext.P4 application in Form 5 before the 1st respondent and it culminated in Ext.P7 order by which the same was rejected. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging the same.

(3.) A statement was submitted on behalf of the 1 st respondent, wherein it is averred that, on examination of the nature and characteristics of the property of the petitioner with the help of the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer and that of KSREC, it was found that, the property was lying fallow and there are no trees in the said property. Therefore, they arrived at a conclusion that the property is not converted as paddy land prior to the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Thus, they sought to justify the decision taken in Ext.P7.