MOIDEEN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P12 order whereby the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is in ownership and possession of 16 cents of dry land in Sy.Nos.9/5, 8/2A and 8/2B of Vaniyamkulam I Village, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad District. It is contended that the property is situated adjacent to the State Highway from Shornur to Palakkad and is surrounded by several commercial buildings. The property is reclaimed atleast 25 years ago and there is no paddy cultivation in the property atleast during the last 50 years. Earlier the request for issuance of building permit for construction of a commercial building was rejected stating that the property is classified as 'nilam' and 'nanja' in the revenue records. While so, an application was filed under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and a writ petition was filed as WP(C) No.3540 of 2017 seeking expeditious consideration of the said application. In the said writ petition, Ext.P7 report was filed by Local Level Monitoring Committee, wherein it is reported that the property in Sy.Nos.8/2A and 8/2B are not included in the data bank and the property in Sy.No.9/5 is classified as 'nanja' and the same was recorded in the data bank as 'converted for construction of house'. It was also found in Ext.P7 report that the property is surrounded by several industrial units and there is no paddy cultivation in the nearby vicinity, and even if permission is granted for conversion it will not affect the free flow of water and will not cause any environmental problems in the locality. This Court adverting to Ext.P7 directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the application under KLU as per Ext.P8 judgment, but the Office of the 1st respondent insisted as a pre-condition for considering the said application that the petitioner has to prefer an application to remove the property from the data bank. Thereupon, an application in this regard was filed, but in the said application the Local Level Monitoring Committee took a totally different stand as evident from Ext.P9 that, conversion of the property will adversely affect the environment and the paddy cultivation. Thereupon by Ext.P10 the application was rejected. Petitioner challenged the same filing WP(C) No.18478 of 2021, wherein Ext.P10 order was set aside with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent RDO to reconsider the application with reference to all the materials on record including Ext.P7 and report of KSRSEC and pass a fresh order. Later on, fresh orders were passed as per Ext.P12 again rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein relying on the judgment in Sulekha Khadar v. Kuzhimanna Grama Panchayat [2022 (6) KHC 116] it is contended that the stand of the petitioner that impugned order is bad for not granting an opportunity of hearing is without any basis. It is after considering the KSRSEC report as well as the materials found out in the physical verification that the application was rejected. It is further submitted that in the enquiry and on the basis of the records it was found that the property has not been converted prior to 12/8/2008. There are no improvement or trees which would show that the property has been converted prior to 12/8/2008. Reliance is also placed by the learned Government Pleader on Exts.R1(a) KSRSEC report, R1(b) report of the Agricultural Officer and R1(c) report of the Village Officer.