Abdul Khader & Fathima Nivas v. Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Munderi; Local Level Monitoring Committee Munderi Grama Panchayath; Munderi Grama Panchayath

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 24017 OF 2015`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ABDUL KHADER AGED 60 YEARS ``` ``` FATHIMA NIVAS, MUNDERI AMSOM DESAM, POST VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SMT.A.A.SHIBI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, MUNDERI, EACHUR PO, KANNUR, PIN-670 591.`** - **`2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE MUNDERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P O EACHUR-670 591.`** - **`3 MUNDERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH P O EACHUR-670 591, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.`** ``` BY ADVS. ``` - **`SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN - R3`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 24017 OF 2015 ``` 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.24017 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th ] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) Call for the records leading to Ext P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ; ii) Direct the 2nd respondent to reclassify the land as garden land after assessing the age of coconut trees and other improvements which are slated to be more than 30 years and issue consequential order directing the 3[rd] respondent Panchayath to number the building constructed in the land comprised in ``` WP(C) NO. 24017 OF 2015 ``` 3 RS.No.31/1 and 33/3 of Munderi Amsom, Eichur Desom; iii) Pass such other orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” SIC 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the directions in Ext.P2 judgment was not followed and consequently Ext.P4 order is passed. In Ext.P2 judgment, the 2[nd] respondent was directed to conduct a site inspection in the presence of the petitioner and if it is found that there are improvements, the data bank should be corrected reclassifying the land as reclaimed land before the Act 28 of 2008, is the submission. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 order is issued in violation of the direction of this Court. It is further stated that, the respondents had not considered the coconut 4 ``` WP(C) NO. 24017 OF 2015 ``` trees and other improvements standing in the property and also not assessed their age. It is also submitted that the respondents did not consider whether the land is fit for cultivation. It is also submitted that the respondents have gone by the alleged report of the Deputy Director which itself was prepared behind the back of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no notice was given before the alleged inspection. According to the petitioner Ext.P4 is in violation of Ext.P2. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P2 judgment. It will be better to extract the same: “The petitioner is the owner of property in Re-survey No.31/1 and 33/3 of Munderi Amsom in Eichur Desom. He constructed a ``` WP(C) NO. 24017 OF 2015 ``` 5 shed. Thereafter an order has been passed by the District Collector under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wet Land Act, 2008 to restore the land in question. Challenging the order the petitioner has approached the Government. Government also affirmed. The petitioner's case is that this property cannot be classified as nilam and this property is a dry land. He further submits that he has already constructed a shed and there are coconut trees having age more than 30 years. According to the petitioner, this is a reclaimed land much before Act 28 of 2008. The photographs produced before this Court also would indicate that this is a converted land and there are many other improvements and it is unfit for paddy. In view of the matter, the local level monitoring committee shall conduct a site inspection and find out the nature of land as on the date of enactment of Act 28 of 2008. The petitioner shall file an ``` WP(C) NO. 24017 OF 2015 ``` 6 application before the local level monitoring committee within two weeks to reclassify the land. The local level monitoring committee shall conduct the site inspection in the presence of the petitioner. If it is found that there are improvements including shed and other coconut trees, necessarily the data bank shall be corrected to reclassify the land as reclaimed the land before Act 28 of 2008. The orders impugned before this Court shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken by the local level monitoring committee. Needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. Writ petition is disposed of as above.” 5. Thereafter, Ext.P4 proceedings is issued. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P4 is not a proceedings issued after considering the directions in Ext.P2 judgment. Moreover, in **Aparna Sasi Menon** 7 ``` WP(C) NO. 24017 OF 2015 ``` ## **v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda** [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court considered about the prime consideration of the authorities while considering an application for removal of land from the data bank. This Court observed that predominant factor for cancellation should be whether the land is sought to be excluded from the data bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. In the light of the above principle, I think, Ext.P4 is to be set aside. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: - i. Ext.P4 order is set aside. ii. The 1[st] respondent will reconsider the matter in the light of the observations in Ext.P2 judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of ``` WP(C) NO. 24017 OF 2015 ``` **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` WP(C) NO. 24017 OF 2015 ``` 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24017/2015`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAND IN RS NO.31/1 AND 33/3 OF MUNDERI AMSOM INCLUDING THE STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED THEREIN. ``` ``` P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4-12-2014 IN WPC.NO.30124 OF 2013. ``` ``` P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED28-1-2015WITHOUTITS ANNEXURE. ``` ``` P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-2-2015. ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING EXT P3. ``` **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL** **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**