Dr P.S. George vs State Of Kerala

T.R. Ravi, J

The petitioner owns properties in Re-Sy.Nos.7/1/2/2, 8/3, 15/1-3, 15/1/1/1, 15/1/2/1, 20/2, 10/2, 9/3 and 10/11 of Vazhappally East Village. On 17.2.2005, he applied before the 5th respondent seeking permission to reclaim the land under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order for short). The 5th respondent issued order No.P/1511/2003 dated 27.2.2006 granting permission. Ext.P1 is the copy of the order. According to the petitioner, the property was reclaimed before the commencement of Act 28 of 2008. The petitioner applied on 3.4.2013 to the Tahsildar, Changanassery seeking to alter the description of the land as Nilam in the Basic Tax Register. When no steps were taken, he approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.21964 of 2014 which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing the petitioner to approach the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) to correct the details of properties and after getting the entry corrected, to approach the District Collector under Clause 6 of the KLU Order for utilising the land for other purposes. The petitioner applied to the LLMC. The LLMC met on 30.3.2015 and considered the petitioner's application. The petitioner was not heard by the LLMC, nor was the decision of the Committee communicated to the petitioner for almost a year. It is only after the petitioner applied on 27.1.2016 under the Right to Information Act that he was issued with a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the LLMC, which has been produced as Ext.P3. It can be seen from Ext.P3 that the view of the LLMS was that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no necessity to consider the request of the petitioner to remove the property from the data bank. The order does not consider the issue on merits. It would appear that the judgment referred to in Ext.P3 is the judgment in RDO, Fortkochi v. Jalaja Dileep reported in [2015 (1) KLT 984 (SC)]. The petitioner applied to the LLMC to review their decision. It is when no decision was taken on the said application which has been produced as Ext.P4, that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P3 and for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner's application for correcting the details in the data bank. The petitioner has thereafter filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 producing Exts.P5 to P10 as additional documents. Ext.P6 is the certificate issued by the 3rd respondent on 12.5.2015 stating that the property has been converted prior to the 2008 Act and that for more than 15 years no agricultural activities are being carried on in the adjoining properties also. It is also stated in the report that a hotel and Changanassery Club are located adjoining the properties and the property is on the side of the Changanassery-Palapra Bypass Road. Ext.P8 is the application submitted on 29.7.2016 to remove the properties from the data bank. Ext.P10 is the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). The report would show that the properties were lying either as fallow land or with buildings and structures and scattered trees and plantations even prior to 2008.

On directions issued by this Court, the Government Pleader has produced the proceedings of the LLMC dated 10.1.2022. What is stated in the report is that the properties in all the survey numbers together form a large extent of land and if the land is filled up, it can cause flooding in the nearby properties. The report does not say that any portion of the property is paddy land, so as to justify inclusion in the data bank.

The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit producing photographs to show the lie of the property and the fact that the property can never be stated to be a paddy land.

Heard Sri Alex M.Scaria, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.S.Syamanthak, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1, 3, 5 and 6 and Sri M.P.Ashok Kumar, for the 4th respondent.

At the time of admission, this Court on 3.3.2017, directed the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition before the Agricultural Officer along with a copy of the Field Measurement Book and survey and subdivision numbers with respect to the property obtained from the concerned Village Officer and directed the Agricultural Officer to seek a report from the KSREC. After obtaining the report, the Agricultural Officer was directed in his capacity as Convener of the LLMC to cause a physical inspection of the property and submit a report before this Court as to the lie and nature of the property. The report of the LLMC produced along with the memo is consequent to the above directions.

Going through the report of the LLMC, the KSREC and that of the Agricultural Officer, it is evident that the properties cannot be treated as paddy land justifying inclusion in the data bank. The only reason stated in Ext.P3 is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not prohibited orders being passed in accordance with the 2008 Act regarding inclusion or exclusion from the data bank. The reasoning in Ext.P3 is hence not relevant to the issue on hand. The petitioner is hence entitled to succeed in this writ petition.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is quashed. It is declared that the properties belonging to the petitioner comprised in Re-Sy.Nos.7/1/2/2, 8/3, 15/1-3, 15/1/1/1, 15/1/2/1, 20/2, 10/2, 9/3 and 10/11 of Vazhappally East Village are not liable to be included in the data bank. Respondents 2 to 4 shall make necessary corrections in the data bank in the light of the above declaration. Respondents 5 and 6 shall also make necessary corrections in the revenue records after orders are issued in terms of the directions contained above, by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall issue necessary orders within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and respondents 5 and 6 shall issue necessary orders within three weeks of receipt of a copy of the order of the 2nd respondent.