VINUMON C. Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nowadays, the routine duty of this Court is to set aside stereotypical orders passed by authorised officers in Form 5 applications filed by land owners in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. ('Rules 2008', for brevity) When Form-5 applications are filed before the authorised officers, 90% of them are disposed of with the same set of sentences without application of mind by the authorised officers. This Court, in several judgments, directed the authorised officers to pass a speaking order after adverting to the contentions of the respective parties. But, even if there are several such directions from this Court, the orders are passed without considering those judgments. Similar types of orders are passed by almost all the authorised officers in the state. This Court even apprehends that the authorised officers are passing orders based on a standard order drafted by them, which is circulated among themselves! Since this Court must interfere with these orders for the same reason that they are not a speaking order, the judgments of this Court are also stereotypical. If statistics are examined regarding the writ petitions that set aside orders passed in Form-5 applications, it can be seen that this Court is often compelled to pass stereotypical judgments. No purpose will be served in directing the authorised officers to pass a speaking order is the present situation. In Malayalam, there is a story of a nephew and his uncle. The uncle used to beat the nephew to see that he would become a good boy. But there was no change in him. At last, the nephew told the uncle like this: [xxxxxxxxxx] ("Don't beat me uncle, I will never change,"). But this court cannot take it in that manner as far as authorised officers are concerned. This Court cannot ignore this type of attitude from authorised officers, and this Court knows how to deal with such attitudes from them. Authorised officers are not laymen, but they are senior officers of the state service. The present case is the best example in which an authorised officer not only issued a stereotype order originally in a Form-5 application, but even after this Court set aside the same and directed reconsideration, the same order was repeated without any change, including the modulation of the sentences.

(2.) I will come to the facts of this case first. Petitioner, along with another, is the absolute owner and also in possession and enjoyment of property comprised in Resurvey No.645/13 in Block No.50 of Kannadi-II Village, Palakkad Taluk in Palakkad District, and the extent of property is 0.0203 hectares. Ext.P1 is the possession certificate issued by the 4th respondent, and Ext.P2 is the basic tax receipt issued by the 4th respondent to the petitioner and his co-owner. Ext.P3 is the location sketch of the petitioner's property.

(3.) It is submitted that the petitioner's property, though classified as 'Nilam' as per the revenue records, was kept as barren land without any cultivation for the last so many years. It is submitted that the neighbouring properties were also converted, and residential buildings were constructed. But the Local Level Monitoring Committee, without proper enquiry, erroneously included the petitioner's property in the data bank published by the Kannadi Grama Panchayat, is the submission. According to the petitioner, his property is not at all suitable for any kind of cultivation, because it has been kept as barren land for the last so many years without any cultivation. It is also the case of the petitioner that no water source is available for any kind of cultivation in the said property. Hence, it is submitted that the preservation of the property is impractical. The petitioner produced Ext.P4 photographs to demonstrate that the entire property comprised in the above survey had been converted long ago. Hence, the petitioner filed an application before the 2nd respondent to remove the petitioner's property from the data bank, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 23/8/2024. The order stated that although the said property had now become barren land, it was still shown as unconverted in the year 2008. Ext.P5 is the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5, and Ext.P6 is the order passed by the authorised officer in that application. According to the petitioner, as per Ext. P7 KSREC (Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre) report, the property was already converted in the year 2008. According to the KSREC report, the petitioner's property was 'fallow land'. The petitioner relied on the decision of this court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ekm and Others [2020 (2) KHC 94].