SOHAN DAS Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, along with his brothers, is stated to be in ownership of an extent of 82.25 cents in Re.Sy. No.54/8 in Block No.19 of Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, as per Ext.P1 sale deed. Tax with respect to the property is also being remitted by him, as evidenced by Ext.P2. The property, though described as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, was actually a 'Purayidam', according to the petitioner. The petitioner states that the property in question was reclaimed more than five decades ago. The petitioner also states that coconut trees, etc., are available in the property in question, as evidenced by the photographs produced along with the writ petition.

(2.) However, the property in question was included in the data bank. In such circumstances, an application in Form-5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 was filed before the appropriate authority. Originally, this application was rejected by the order at Ext.P7. The said order found that even though coconut trees were seen planted in the property in question, the property was waterlogged and hence the application could not be allowed. This order was challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.20234 of 2022. By Ext.P8 judgment dtd. 3/2/2023, this Court extensively made reference to the KSREC report, which was available before the authority when it passed Ext.P7 order. The KSREC report is also produced along with this writ petition as Ext.P4.

(3.) This Court, pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment, after referring to the KSREC report and noticing the principles laid down in Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2021 (1) KLT 433) and in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022 (7) KHC 591), was of the opinion that the matter required reconsideration. Hence, the impugned order at Ext.P7 was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.