MARIAMMA MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment, and WP(C) No.19099 of 2021 is treated as the leading case.

(2.) As per the averment in the writ petition petitioner is the owner in possession of 55 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.363/4A of Marady Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, and the property is in the limits of Muvattupuzha town. For the last more than 50 years the entire property is lying as converted. Even in Ext.P1 data bank prepared the propety is described as converted land. Petitioner submitted Exts.P2 and P3 application under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking permission to use the aforesaid property for other purpose. As no action was taken on Exts.P2 and P3 petitioner approached this Court filing WP(C) No.28034 of 2017 and the same was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment directing the 2nd respondent/District Collector to consider the petitioner 's application. Even though in Ext.P1 data bank the property is described as converted land, due to the inclusion of the same in the data bank, petitioner submitted necessary application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee for removing the property from the data bank, and in the said proceedings Ext.P5 KSRSEC report was also obtained. Thereafter the LLMC after considering Ext.P5 KSRSEC report decided to remove the property from the data bank as per Ext.P6 and the same was communicated to the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P7. In Ext.P7 report it was categorically informed that the property is converted land prior to the date of implementation of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2008 '). Since no action was taken thereafter petitioner was constrained to approach this Court filing WP(C) No.470/2021, and based on Ext.P8 interim order issued by this Court a decision was taken by the 3rd respondent RDO on the application seeking permission under the KLU order and rejected by Ext.P9.

(3.) Petitioner submits that decision in Ext.P9 is in violation of the findings in Ext.P5 KSRSEC report as well as Ext.P7 minutes and Ext.P7 report of the LLMC. Petitioner relies on the judgment in Mather Nagar Residence Association & Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam & Others [2020 (2) KHC 94] and submits that merely because the property is lying fallow and water get logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as a wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A perusal of Ext.P9 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer would reveal that the claim was registered taking a stand that the earlier decision of the LLMC evident by Ext.P6 minutes was without taking into consideration the KSRSEC report. In view of the same the Agricultural Officer was directed to file further report in the matter, and the Agricultural Officer submitted a report stating that, till 2013 the property was lying as paddy land. Petitioner submits that once the LLMC has already found that on physical verification and considering the KSRSEC report that the property was converted prior to 2008; the said order cannot be reviewed and in support of the said contention petitioner relies on the judgment in Mary John v. District Collector [2020 (6) KHC 86]. Petitioner would further submit that in similar circumstance this Court has interfered and set aside the order passed by the RDO as per Ext.P12 judgment in WP(C) No.11657 of 2020.