RASHEED Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 02.55 Ares (6.30 cents) of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.323/6-4-3-2 in Block No.36 of Aluva East Village in Aluva Taluk in Ernakulam District. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the fact that the property of the petitioner stood reclaimed even prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the same was included in the Data Bank as Paddy land. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in Form-5, which was rejected as per the Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging the same.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent in response to the averments in the writ petition. It is averred in the said affidavit that, after perusing the report of Local Level Monitoring Committee, which is prepared after obtaining the satellite images and report from the KSRSEC, it was observed that, the property is remaining as fallow land, and therefore, it was assumed that the land was not converted before 2008. Thus, a recommendation was made to the Revenue Divisional Officer to retain the property in the data bank. Besides, in para 3 of the counter affidavit, it was also observed that the property was surrounded by buildings on three sides, and on one side, there is a road.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Soyuz P.K, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ranjith, the learned Special Government Pleader for the state.