AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 368 wordsBechu Kurian Thomas, J
Petitioners challenge Ext.P3 order dated 11.06.2023 issued by the 1st respondent, rejecting their application submitted as Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules 2008.
Petitioners are the owners in possession of 2.63 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.39/9-1 of Kozhukkulli Village in Thrissur Taluk. According to the petitioners, their property is a dry land and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, by mistake the property has been included in the data bank. Hence, they preferred Form 5 application before the 1st respondent. By Ext.P3, merely on the basis of the report from the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the first respondent has rejected the application.
I have heard Sri.C.A.Chacko, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Smt.Amminikutty.R., the learned Sr.Government Pleader.
In the decision in Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer 2023 (4) KHC 524 this Court had specifically held that while considering an application for removal of land from the data bank, the Revenue Divisional Officer has to consider whether the removal of the land will affect paddy cultivation either in the said land or in the nearby paddy lands. It was also held that mere reliance on the report of the LLMC is not sufficient to dismiss an application.
On a perusal of Ext.P3 reveals that the impugned order has been issued without proper application of mind and cannot even be treated as a speaking order. The impugned order has been issued by a mere reliance on the report of the LLMC. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and a fresh decision is required to be taken.
Therefore, I set aside Ext.P3 and direct the first respondent to re-consider the application of the petitioner submitted in Form 5 under the Rules in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations of this Court in the decision in Muraleedharan Nair case (supra). A decision as directed above shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of.