Remadevi vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its Secretary To Goverment

N. Nagaresh, J

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22393/2021 has filed this review petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

aggrieved by judgment dated 05.12.2022 in the writ petition.

The petitioner owned 16 Cents of land in Elamedu Village of Kollam District bound by Ayur Kollam PWD road on the one side and a road leading

to ITI on another side. A tea shop is being run in the property for more than 25 years.

In revenue records, the property is included as paddy land. The land is also included in the Data Bank of paddy land and wetland, indicating that the

land is now under tapioca cultivation. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application in Form-5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wetland Rules,

2008 seeking to remove the land from the Data Bank. The 3rd respondent rejected the Form-5 application as per Ext.P9 order. The petitioner argued

that the rejection is illegal.

The 3rd respondent-RDO resisted the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner's property is in a reclaimed stage. The coconut trees standing

on the land were only up to 12 years age, thereby indicating that the coconut trees were planted after 2008, when the Act, 2008 came into force. The

other trees found on the land were on the boundaries of the property. The petitioner's land is suitable for paddy cultivation and hence it is a paddy land,

urged the RDO. This Court noted that the Local Level Monitoring Committee has held that the standing coconut trees are only 12 years of age and

the adjacent lands are wetlands. If the petitioner's land is permitted to be removed from the Data Bank and reclaimed, there is a likelihood of nearby

wetlands also being reclaimed.

This Court noted that as per Ext.P7 KSREC report, the land was paddy land in the year 1967. By the year 2004, the land use pattern was changed

into fallow / mixed plantation / vegetation. In view of the factual findings made by the competent authorities, this Court found no reason to interfere

with Ext.P9 order. Writ petition was consequently dismissed.

The petitioner has come up with the Review Petition alleging errors on the face of the judgment dated 05.12.2022. The counsel for the petitioner

produced Annexure-A document which is a Sale Deed in respect of the land in which the land was described as 'panappurayidam'. The 6th

respondent prepared Data Bank describing the land as under tapioca cultivation. 50 year old coconut trees, Anjili trees and Mango trees standing in

the property, were discounted. The fact that a tea shop is functioning in the land for more than 20 years is also ignored.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that Annexure-A document is dated 13.03.1996 and the nature of the land is described as “reclaimedâ€,

situated by the side of the District Road maintained by the PWD. The land is not cultivable paddy land or wetland as on the date of notification of Act

28 of 2008. Sufficient intrinsic evidence is available to prove that the land owned by the petitioner is not a paddy land or wetland, contended the

counsel for the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. S. Gopinathan representing the respondents.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, while disposing of the petitioner's Form-5 application, found that the land of the petitioner is paddy land. The

conclusion arrived at by the Revenue Divisional Officer was based on certain materials. Ext.P6 report of the LLMC found that the petitioner's

property is in a reclaimed state. During preparation of the Data Bank, the land was found under tapioca cultivation. The coconut trees standing were

hardly 12 years of age. The other trees situated in the land were on the boundaries of the property.

It was also noted that eastern and southern plots around the petitioner's land are wetlands. The authorities found that the land of the petitioner is

suitable for paddy cultivation.

The petitioner will rely on Annexure-A sale deed of the year 1996 wherein the property is described as “panappurayidam†by the side of

PWD road. But, a sale deed executed between private parties itself will not be sufficient to establish that the land was not a fallow land / paddy land

in the year 1996. The coconut trees existing in the property are only 12 years old, which would imply that those were planted subsequent to the year

2008 when the Act, 2008 came into force. The trees other than coconut trees standing on the property are on the boundaries of the property.

The counsel for the review petitioner would urge that the land in question is bound by a PWD road on the one side and road leading to ITI on the

other. The fact that there is an Industrial Training Institute functioning on the side of one of the roads would not be sufficient to come to a conclusion

that the petitioner's land is not a paddy land. In the case of the petitioner's land, it is found that on the two sides of the petitioner's land, there are

wetlands. The authorities have found that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation.

In the afore circumstances, I do not find any errors apparent on the face of the judgment dated 05.12.2022 in W.P.(C) No.22393/2021.

The Review Petition fails and it is dismissed.