RAVEENDRAN Vs. SUB COLLECTOR/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner 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 4.25 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.80/3-3 of Vaniyamkulam 1 Village, Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad District covered by Ext.P1 possession certificate. The petitioner has constructed a residential building as evidenced by Ext.P2 property tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a garden land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the same as 'nanja (wetland)' and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner submitted a Form 5 application before the 1st respondent. But, the 1st respondent, by solely relying on the report of the Village Officer/4th respondent, has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application without any application of mind. The 1 st respondent has not directly inspected the property or called for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.

(3.) The 1st respondent has filed a statement, inter- alia, stating that the Agricultural Officer after conducting a site inspection reported that the petitioner's property includes commercial establishment and residential plot. There is a road on one side and residential buildings on the other two sides. The rear portion of the petitioner's property falls within the paddy filed area. It was not converted prior to 2008. Therefore, the application cannot be allowed.