C. SAJITHA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of a property having an extent of 4.21 Ares comprised in Re.Sy.No.50/15 (Old Sy.No.226/5C) in Block No.27 of Alathur Village. The petitioner purchased the said property as per the sale deed dtd. 7/4/2022 of SRO, Alathur. According to the petitioner, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner earlier submitted an application under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and the same was allowed as per Ext.P2 order dtd. 13/4/1993 by which permission was granted to convert the property for residential purpose. Thereafter, as the property was included in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Paddy Land Act'), the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5. Later, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.27736/2023 for expeditious disposal of the Form 5 application. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment in which direction was issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Form 5 application taking note of the order passed under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The 1st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, issued Ext.P7 order rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging the said order.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. In the said statement, it was averred that, even though the property was granted permission to be converted under Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order, such permission was subjected to certain conditions. It was also averred that, as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the property was not physically converted for residential purposes as permitted under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and currently the property is lying fallow. Therefore, it was reported by the Agricultural Officer, the same has to be retained in the Data Bank. It is also averred that, on the northern side of the property, there is PalakkadThrissur Highway and the rest of the boundaries are currently paddy lands and therefore exclusion of the property from the Data Bank will adversely affect the adjacent paddy lands.

(3.) Heard Smt.Mini.V.A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Amminikutty K., learned Government Pleader for the respondents.