RAJESH M. K. Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P2 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).

(2.) The petitioners are the owners in possession of 3.64 Ares of property in Survey No.341/320 (Re-Survey No.341/1J) of the Ramanattukara Village in Calicut District, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a dry land. There are trees and other plantations in the property. The property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the petitioners' property as paddy land in the data bank. In the said circumstances, the petitioners had submitted Ext.P2 application to remove their property from the data bank. The 2nd respondent, solely relying on a report of the Village Officer, has rejected Ext.P2 application by the impugned Ext.P4 order. The entire procedure followed by the 2 nd respondent is irregular and improper. Going by the scheme of the Act, the 2nd respondent ought to have called for a report from the 5th respondent and then, independently evaluated the nature, lie and character of the petitioners' property and whether it is suitable for paddy cultivation. If the 2nd respondent had any doubt regarding the character of the property, he ought to have called for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), as contemplated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. In view of the material irregularity committed by the 2nd respondent, Ext.P4 order is liable to be quashed. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.