Antu Antony v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and Village Officer, Keerampara Village

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 7TH** # **PHALGUNA, 1945** # **WP(C) NO. 7277 OF 2024** ## PETITIONER/S: ANTU ANTONY AGED 59 YEARS S/O. O.V. ANTONY, OLIAPURAM, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., PIN - 686691 BY ADVS. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW ANJANA S. NEENA ELISABATH ANTONY ## RESPONDENTS: 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER R.D.O. OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR PATTIMATTOMMUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA (P.O.), PIN - 686673 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KEERAMPARA VILLAGE., PIN - 686681 ## OTHER PRESENT: SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC No.7277/2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Against Ext.P10 order rejecting Ext.P6 application filed by the petitioner in Form-7 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short ‘Act, 2008’) for change of nature of 38.54 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.614/4 of Keerampara Village, the petitioner filed W.P.(c) No.36800/2023 before this Court and by Ext.P12 judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P10. The relevant portion of the said judgment read thus:- “2. In column No.7 of Ext.P7 report, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is specifically stated that there is no water channel through the property or that there is no paddy cultivation in the nearby properties. It is also submitted that in respect of a similarly situated property adjacent to the petitioner's property owned by the brother of the petitioner, which is also comprised in the very same survey number, the very same officer has allowed the application for conversion as per Ext.P11 order dated ``` WPC No.7277/2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` 19.01.2021. It is further submitted that there is no reason for rejecting the application as per Ext.P10 in the light of Ext.P7 report of the Village Officer and Ext.P11 order. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also. After hearing both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P10 order with a consequential direction to the first respondent to re-consider Ext.P6 Form-7 application in the light of Ext.P11 order and also Ext.P7 report of the Village Officer, specifically column No.7 of Ext.P7. If the petitioner's property is similarly situated with that of the property covered by Ext.P11, a similar treatment shall be extended to the petitioner also. It is for the first respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider all these aspects, who shall independently consider the same in the light of Ext.P7 report and Ext.P11 order. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 2. Column No.7 of Ext.P7 shows that the Village Officer has reported that there are no paddy lands near the property of the petitioner. However, by Ext.P13, the Revenue Divisional Officer, without adverting to Column No.7 of Ext.P7 and the ``` WPC No.7277/2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` directions in Ext.P12 judgment, has rejected the application stating that there are waterchaals in the petitioner’s property and there is presence of water in the nearby thodu. 3. Section 27A of Act, 2008 deals with change of nature of unnotified land and sub section (2) thereof provides that the RDO shall after considering the report of the Village Officer concerned and after ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary, pass such orders on the application for change of nature of land. Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, Rules, 2008) deals with the procedure for change of nature of unnotified land and Rule 12(4) provides that, on receipt of an application in Form 6, the RDO shall forward the application to ``` WPC No.7277/2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` the Village Officer concerned and the Village Officer shall conduct an enquiry on the application and submit a report before the RDO. Rule 12(5) provides that the Village Officer shall report whether if a change of nature of the land is permitted, it will cause any obstruction to the free flow of water to the nearby paddy fields, if any. Interpreting the above provisions, this Court in **Varghese v. District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93]** held that, the only aspect that should be ascertained by the RDO while considering a Form 6 application seeking permission to change the nature of the unnotified land is whether such change of nature of land will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field, if any, and that such reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops in the adjoining land. ``` WPC No.7277/2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` Since Ext.P13 order has been passed without adverting to the provisions under Section 27A of the Act, 2008 and Rule 12(5) of the Rules, 2008 and in disregard to the directions of this Court in Ext.P12 judgment, I set aside the same. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to consider Ext.P6 application in the light of Ext.P7 report of the Village Officer, particularly column No.7, and also the directions of this Court in Ext.P12 judgment. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** al/-.27.02.2024. ``` WPC No.7277/2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## A PPENDIX OF WP(C) 7277/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 12/09/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 A ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND AND ITS NEARBY LANDS. Exhibit P3 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND COMPRISED IN SURVEY NOS.614/2, 614/3-12-2 AND 614/4 OF KEERAMPARA VILLAGE. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21/04/1999 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (WBP), KSEB SUBDIVISION, KOTHAMANGALAM Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/04/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11/04/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM NO.7 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN ANNEXURE 2 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 31/08/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF PLAN PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ``` WPC No.7277/2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/1/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE ADJACENT EASTERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND IN SURVEY NO. 614/4 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 24/11/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO: 36800/2023 Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/02/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT JUDGMENT DATED 05/01/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.43213/2023 REPORTED AS ANTONY KURIAKOSE V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA 2024 KHC ONLINE 10034