JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of 38.72 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.113/10, 113/11 and 113/12 of Nedumbassery Village, Ernakulam District, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. Subsequently, the petitioner also purchased 51.075 cents of land in Re-survey Nos 112/3 and 112/7 as per Ext.P2 sale deed. Now, the properties are lying contiguously as a compact plot and are bounded by compound walls. The petitioner's property is a reclaimed land much prior to the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules', for brevity). However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'Nilam ' in the revenue records and included it in the data bank. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application in Form 5, to exclude the property from the data bank. The Agricultural Officer had inspected the property and also called for the satellite images from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre ( 'KSREC ', for brevity) as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rule. As per Ext.P6 report, the petitioner's property has been identified as a fallow land. Yet, the 5th respondent decided not to exclude the property from the data bank. Consequently, the 4th respondent rejected the Form 5 application by Ext.P7 order. The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 order before this Court in W.P(C) No.3825/2024. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P7 order and directed the 4th respondent to reconsider the matter, after adverting to the principles laid down by this Court on the subject matter and also the materials on record. But, by Ext.P10 order, the 4th respondent again rejected Form 5 application without any application of mind. The 4th respondent has not directly inspected the property or rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12/8/2008 or the findings in Ext.P6 report. Ext.P10 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.

(2.) Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) The petitioner's specific case is that, his property is a converted land much prior to 12/8/2008. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. Even though he submitted Ext.P5 application to exclude the property from the data bank, the same has been rejected twice by the 4th respondent. Exts.P7 and P10 orders are unsustainable in law.