AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ravi, J.
The petitioner owned 17 Ares of land out of which he sold 4.05 Ares during 2019. The petitioner is presently the owner in possession of 12.95 Ares in Re.Sy.No.116/7 in Block No.24 in Mulanthuruthy Village. He has filed the writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P12 order to the extent it directs the petitioner to retain the 'chaal' and not to reclaim the 'chaal' between the coconut trees. There is also a prayer for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P14 application ignoring the entry in Ext.P16 data bank regarding the nature of the land and for a direction to the 5th respondent to make necessary additions and corrections in the Basic Tax Register and revenue records by changing the classification of 12.95 Ares as purayidam/ parambu/dry land. Consequential reliefs have also been prayed for.
The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C)No.4883 of 2013 when an application for building permit submitted by him was rejected stating that the land is shown as paddy land in the data bank. The said writ petition was disposed of holding that the properties of the petitioner are neither cultivable paddy lands nor wetlands for the purpose of including in the land data bank prepared in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. There is a direction to the 3rd respondent to exclude the land from the data bank and notify the same. There is a further direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the application dated 12.9.2017 within six weeks from the date of production of a certificate from the 3rd respondent. Ext.P10 is the judgment. Thereafter the 3rd respondent issued orders excluding the properties from the data bank. However, by Ext.P12 order, the 1st respondent while allowing the application under Clause 6 (2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order issued conditions to retain certain Thodu/Chaal. The order was issued on 10.1.2019 and thereafter by Ext.P16, the properties of the petitioner were again included in the data bank. The writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by Ext.P12 order and P16 whereby the property was again included in the data bank.
Heard Sri P.K.Soyuz, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners and Sri B.S.Syamanthak, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.
This Court has already held in Ext.P10 judgment in W.P.(C)No.4883 of 2013, in which the 1st respondent was a party, that the properties belonging to the petitioner are neither paddy land nor wetland and are not liable to be included in the data bank. After the categoric declaration by this Court, there can be no justification for including the land again in the data bank as seen from Ext.P16. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P10, the 3rd respondent had passed orders excluding the property from the data bank. That is more the reason why the property could not have been again included as has been done by Ext.P16. Ext.P16 cannot be sustained and is hence liable to be set aside. Regarding the conditions imposed in Ext.P12, the same are also without any authority. This Court has in Lalu v. State of Kerala reported in [2020 (5) KLT 712] held that the data bank to be prepared under the 2008 Act is the data bank of cultivable paddy lands existing as on 24.12.2008. In the light of the declaration made by this Court in Ext.P11 that the property is neither a paddy land nor a wetland liable to be included in the data bank and the order issued by the 3rd respondent thereafter, the lands cannot be considered as paddy lands, to require the retention of any Thodu or 'chaal', which are essentially used for the purpose of irrigation.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P12 to the extent it lays down the condition that the petitioner shall maintain the “chaal/Thodu” between the coconut trees is set aside. The respondents 3 to 5 are directed to take steps to issue erratum notification by excluding the lands owned by the petitioner comprised in R.S.No.116/7-2 and 116/7-3 in Block No.24 of Mulanthuruthy village, Kanayannur Taluk covered by T.P.No.6554 from the notified Data Bank of Mulanthuruthy Grama Panchayat within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will be entitled to use the above said land as Purayidam/Parambu/Dry land. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P14 application, ignoring Ext.P16 data bank, in the light of the decisions in District Collector v. Fr.Jose Uppani [2020 (4) KLT 612], LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma & Anr. [2015 (2) KLT 516], Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki & Ors. [2020 (5) KLT 403] and Joseph v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2021 (5) KLT 125] and direct the 5th respondent to make necessary additions and correction in the BTR and revenue records by changing the classification of 12.95 ares of land in R.S.No.116/7-2 and 116/7-3 in Block No.24 of Mulanthuruthy village, Kanayannur Taluk covered by T.P.No.6554, as Purayidom/Parambu/Dry land, within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.