SHINILA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 9.51 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No.77/22 in Block No.4 of Kakkur Village in Kozhikode Taluk. According to the petitioner, even though the said property described as "paddy land" in the Revenue records, it was reclaimed much prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Paddy Land Act'). It is averred that, there is a residential building in the said property and trees are also standing there. Despite the above, the said property was included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act.

(2.) In such circumstances, an application was submitted for removing the same from the Data Bank, and while processing the said application, the Ext.P2 report was submitted by the LLMC after conducting the physical inspection of the property. In the said report, it was found that a residential building is in existence in the said property and there are trees as well. On the basis of the above, a recommendation was made by the LLMC to remove the property from the Data Bank. Besides, it was specifically mentioned in Ext.P2 report that, the conversion of the land did not affect the natural water flow as well. Acting upon Ext.P2, the entire extent of property was removed from the Data Bank and the notification issued in this regard is Ext.P1.

(3.) Later, the petitioner submitted an application in Form 6 for classifying the property as dry land in the Revenue records. However, the said application was rejected by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P5 order. Challenging the same, an appeal was submitted before the 2nd respondent and that culminated in Ext.P9, by which the appeal was dismissed confirming Ext.P5 order. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances, challenging Ext.P5 and P9 orders passed by the respondents 3 and 2 respectively.