Antony Paul vs Local Level Monitoring Committee

N. Nagaresh, J

The pieces of land of the petitioners are situated contiguously in Survey No.175/2 of Palissery Village, Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District. The land is described as Purayidam in Revenue records. As the land is described as Purayidam in Revenue records, it cannot be included in the Data Bank of Paddy land and wetland, contend the petitioners.

However, their land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioners filed Form-5 application to remove the land from the Data Bank. The Agricultural Officer issued Ext.P10 communication stating that the eastern portion of the property up to the backside of the Tile Factory can be deleted from the Data Bank. The respondents, however, refused to remove the entire property from the Data Bank.

Aggrieved by Ext.P10, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.21537 of 2021 before this Court. This Court as per Ext.P11 judgement set aside Ext.P10 and directed the 1st respondent- LLMC to reconsider the matter considering the applicability of Ext.P1 judgment in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (5) KLT 712]. The 1st respondent, however, rejected the Form-5 application again, as per Ext.P12 order.

Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioner argued that Ext.P12 order is in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner’s land is mentioned as Purayidam in Revenue records. Hence, in view of Rule 4 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, the land cannot be included in the Data Bank. This fact is overlooked and ignored by the 1st respondent.

The 1st respondent has misconstrued Ext.P11 judgement, urged the Senior Counsel. The petitioner’s land is not paddy land at least for the last 51 years. A Tile Factory was functioning in this property for a long period. Ext.P12 order is in total negation of the settled legal position. Ext.P12 order is therefore liable to be quashed, urged the Senior Counsel.

The respondents resisted the writ petition. The 2nd respondent filed a Statement. The land involved is described as 'Purayidam' in the Revenue records and as 'Nilam' in the Data Bank. The land is seen divided into small plots and are owned by six different persons, the petitioners. The Local Level Monitoring Committee reconsidered the issue of inclusion of the land in the Data Bank pursuant to the directions contained in W.P.(C) No.21537 of 2021 and consequently, Ext.P12 order was passed.

The field verification revealed that the land is bordered by a paddy plot which is being cultivated in two seasons in an year in the north, paddy cultivated field in the west, a fallow paddy land in the south and Kodungallur-Thrissur Road in the east. There are buildings and plantations on the eastern part of the plot. The western part is seen fallow and appears to be a field of paddy land.

The KSREC report states that the plot was observed as paddy land in 1967. The plot is bordered by a road in the east and waterbody in the north. The land was observed as predominantly fallow and scattered with trees/plantations and with buildings and structures towards east, in the Data of 29.03.2007. The LLMC members mentioned that the land was filled during 2015-'16. The District Collector has ordered to bring back the land to its original position as per Ext.R2(b) order. The respondents urged that it is unacceptable to conclude that a land which was paddy land in 1967 became garden land in Revenue records.

I have heard the learned Senior Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

By Ext.P11 judgment, this Court directed the 1st respondent-LLMC to reconsider the issue of inclusion of the petitioners' land in the Data Bank and to take a decision in one month. Pursuant to Ext.P11, the 1st respondent reconsidered the matter. The LLMC found that in the light of the site inspection and the KSREC report it is clear that there was industrial unit functioning on the eastern side of the land. Some part adjacent to the industrial unit was used for storage of clay and for other purposes. The rest of the land was lying barren. The LLMC found that the KSREC report speaks about a pond. Ponds fall within the ambit of paddy land. Therefore, the western side of the land would fall under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland, 2008. Therefore, the 1st respondent decided to exclude the land on the eastern side up to the portion of the pond from the Data Bank and to retain the remaining land in the Data Bank. The Village Officer was directed to conduct a survey in order to relocate the paddy land from other portions.

It is to be noted that the petitioners' land is described as purayidom in Thandaper Register under Register No.3309. Ext.P3 land receipt would describe the entire property as purayidom. Ext.P13 is the Basic Tax Register. In Ext.P13 BTR also, the land of the petitioners is described as purayidom. Ext.P4 is a certificate issued by the District Industries Centre to show that an industrial unit named 'Sreelakshmi Tiles' was located in Ward No.VIII/362-A in Avinissery Panchayat. Ext.P5 is a certificate issued by the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat which would show that property tax has been paid for the year 2020-2021, in respect of a building situated in the land.

In fact, even the statements filed by the Agricultural Officer would show that the land in survey numbers 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177 and 1178 are described as purayidom in the Revenue records.

Rule 4(1)(a) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, which is the Rule governing inclusion of land in Data Bank, would provide that lands which are mentioned in the Revenue records as paddy land can be included in the Data Bank. Therefore, it is evident that the lands which are mentioned in the Revenue records as purayidom cannot be included in the Data Bank. The LLMC has noted that the land on the western side was lying as a barren land. In Ext.P1 judgment in Lalu P.S. (supra), this Court has held that Data Bank to be prepared under the Act is the Data Bank of the cultivable paddy lands existing as on the date of coming into force of the Rules, 2008.

This Court considered the issue again in Rajesh Kumar N. v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others [2022 (1) KLT 933]. This Court held that the Data Bank to be prepared under the Act, 2008 is the Data Bank of cultivable paddy lands as on the date of coming into force of the Rules.

When the Rules provide that only lands which are mentioned in the Revenue records as paddy land can be included in the Data Bank, the very inclusion of the petitioners' land in the Data Bank is illegal. This Court has been consistently holding that the Data Bank to be prepared under the Act, 2008 is the Data Bank of cultivable lands. Ext.P12 proceedings of the LLMC does not state that the land of the petitioners is cultivable. The observation of the 1st respondent in Ext.P12 is that if the land is used for other purposes, it may result in environmental issues. The said reasoning will not be sufficient for inclusion of the land of the petitioners in the land Data Bank.

In the circumstances, the petitioners are bound to succeed. Exts.P10 and P12 proceedings are therefore set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to exclude the entire 1.07 Hectares of land of the petitioners covered by Ext.P3 to Ext.P3(e) from the Data Bank within a period of six weeks.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.