JACOB BOBBAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is stated to be in ownership and possession of an area of 17 Ares in Re-Sy.No.116/7 in Block No. 24 in Mulanthuruthy Village, has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P10 communication issued by the 4th respondent, whereby the petitioner was informed that an application for building permit submitted by him for construction of a residential house in the said property could not be considered since the land was shown as paddy land in the land data bank prepared for the region. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has also preferred Ext.P14 application before the 2nd respondent seeking necessary permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation order for conversion of the user of the land. This Court had also directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) to furnish a report with regard to the nature and lie of the land. Although the report submitted by the LLMC suggests that the land belonging to the petitioner, and falling within the survey number mentioned above, is classifiable as a wetland, the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), which analysed the plot using satellite data, indicates that the land was cultivated with plantation crops from 2003 to 2016. The report of the KSREC clearly indicates that the land in question was not a wetland for the purposes of classification as such under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act ('2008 Act' for short). The report of the LLMC however, suggests that the land is in fact wetland. This report of the LLMC also differs from the entries in the draft land data bank prepared for the region, which shows the land belonging to the petitioner as paddy land. On a consideration of the entries in the land data bank as also the report of the LLMC and the report of the KSREC, I am of the view that, based on the satellite image studies done by the KSREC, which the LLMC should have relied upon for the purposes of drawing their inference with regard to the nature and lie of the land, the land belonging to the petitioner would not merit classification either as paddy land or wetland for the purposes of inclusion in the land data bank prepared for the region. This is more so because the satellite image study shows that the land was being cultivated with plantation crops between 2003 and 2016 and therefore, well before the coming into force of the 2008 Act. Accordingly, I allow the writ petition;