AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R.Ravi, J
The writ petition has been filed praying to quash Ext.P5 and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner seeking to delete the property of the petitioner from the Land Data Bank. The petitioner is the owner of 3.95 Ares of property in Sy.No.308/21-2 in Block No.8 of Neduvathoor Village, Kottarakara Taluk. He had applied for deletion of his property from the Land Data Bank on 24.12.2019 in Form No.5. By Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent rejected the application stating that as per the KSREC report and field inspection conducted, it is observed that the property is retained as paddy land with streams and hence the property cannot be removed from the Data Bank. The petitioner has produced Ext.P6 photographs of the property which does not show any stream as stated in Ext.P5. In fact the photographs would show that on two sides of the property there are roads and coconut trees are standing in the property.
The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, wherein it is reiterated that on site inspection, it was found that the property was retained as paddy land and it had streams. The statement further shows that the report of the KSREC also is to the same effect. Annexure R2(a) report of the Agricultural Officer has also been produced, wherein it is stated that as per the KSREC report and field inspection, it is seen that the property is retained as paddy land and there are streams. The petitioner has produced the KSREC report as Ext.P10. Ext.P10 clearly shows that as per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 308/21 was observed as paddy land and the plot was observed as fallow land with scattered trees in 2002 data. It is also stated that the same land use pattern was continued in the year 2011, 2017 and 2020. It is hence obvious that at the time of coming into force of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, it could at best be said that the property is lying as fallow land with scattered trees. What is required to be shown is the nature of the property at the time of coming into force of the Act and not whether the land can be utilized for paddy cultivation.
In such circumstances, Ext.P5 is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner on the basis of the specific finding in the KSREC report noticed above and after verifying the actual state of affairs. While reconsidering the issue, the 2nd respondent shall not be in any way influenced by Annexure R2(a) report and a fresh report shall be called for, if necessary with photographs of the property, so that the 2nd respondent can come to an independent decision on the issue. Necessary orders shall be issued within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.