Bindu Somanath.K.T. and Sindhu Suresh v. The District Collector, Kozhikode & Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 20353 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1BINDU SOMANATH.K.T. W/O PRASAD, RESIDING AT SARASWATHI THONDAYAD, NELLIKODE P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ``` ``` 2SINDHU SURESH W/O SURESH, KALLADA HOUSED, HILL ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680121. ``` ``` BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673 016. ``` ``` 2THE TAHSILDAR KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673016. ``` ``` 3THE VILLAGE OFFICER KOTOOLI, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673016. ``` ``` 4THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOZHIKODE-673016. ``` ``` 5THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673016. ``` ``` 6THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008) ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 20353 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHIYARA , KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673016. ``` ``` 7KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE 1ST FLOOR, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KRALA-695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ``` ``` SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 20353 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed with following prayers: - “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P11 order dated 13.09.2019 passed by 6[th] respondent in violation of the directions contained in Exhibit P10 judgment. - (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 6[th] respondent to allow the application mentioned in Exhibit P3 in the light of Exhibit P7 report from the Director Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, as well as the dictum laid down in the matter of Mather Nagar Residents Association v. District Collector [2020 (2) KLT 192].” 2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that even after Ext.P10 judgment the 6[th] respondent again passed Ext.P11 order which against the directions in Ext.P10 judgment. Hence this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the ``` WP(C) NO. 20353 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` contentions of the petitioners. The learned counsel also takes me through Ext.P10 judgment and thereafter, Ext.P11 order. The learned counsel submitted that Ext.P11 is an order flouting the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P11 is an order in tune with Ext.P10. The learned Government Pleader takes me through the relevant portion of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and submitted that the ultimate authority to decide these issue is 6[th] respondent. She submitted that, 6[th] respondent after considering the entire aspects passed Ext.P11 order and there is nothing to be interfered with the same. 6. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners approached this Court earlier and they obtained Ext.P10 judgment before this Court. It would be better to extract relevant portion of Ext.P10: “10. The 7[th] respondent-Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre is a body of experts competent to assess the ``` WP(C) NO. 20353 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` nature of land, using technical tools including satellite images. When such a body gives a report, such report cannot be casually brushed aside by the 6[th] respondent-LLMC. The 6[th] respondentLLMC decided to ignore the report of the 7[th] respondent for the sole reason that during their visit, water logging was found in between the standing trees in the plot. This is not a sufficient reason to discard Ext.P7 report. 11. A Division Bench of this Court has held in the judgment in _**Mather Nagar Residents Association**_ v. _**District Collector**_ [2020 (2) KLT 192] that- “Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSREC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSREC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. That apart on a query made by us, counsel on either side submitted that, the properties in question have access from the National Highway from Kochi to Coimbatore and by the side of ``` WP(C) NO. 20353 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` Kochi Metro line, which are also admittedly developed areas with large number of residential, commercial and multi utility buildings apart from various educational and religious institutions, thus having no scope for any paddy cultivation.” The afore judgment will apply to the facts of the petitioners' case also. For all the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P8 decision of the 6[th] respondent cannot be sustained. Ext.P8 is therefore set aside. The 6[th] respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner acknowledged by Ext.P3, taking into account Ext.P7 report of the 7[th] respondent and the satellite photographs. Final decision in the matter should be taken within a period of two months.” ## 7. Based on the above direction, the 6[th] respondent passed an order, which was communicated to the petitioners by the Agricultural Officer. It would be beneficial to extract Ext.P11 also: "മേൽസൂചന 4 ൽപറയുന്നബഹു. കേ രളഹൈ ക്കോടതിയുടെ നിർദേശമനുസരിച്സൂചന 1 ൽപറയുന്നതാങ്കളുടെ അപേ ക്ഷ 13/09/2021 നു ചേ ർന്ന ക ോഴിക്കോട് ക ോർപറേഷൻ എൽ.എൽ.എം.സി. പുനഃപരിഗണിക്കുകയുംതാങ്കളുടെ ഹരജിയിൽ പറയുന്നക ോട്ടൂളിവില്ലേ ജിൽറി.സ.78/2 ൽപെ ട്ട 5.26 ആർസ്, 2.51 ആർസ് എന്നീ ഭൂമി 09/09/2021 നു എൽ.എൽ.എം.സി. കമ്മിറ്റി അംഗങ്ങൾ സംയുക്തമായി പരിശശോധന നടത്തുകയും താങ്കളുടെ ഭൂമി സംബന്ധിച്ച കെ .എസ്.ആർ.ഇ.സി. റിപ്പോർട ``` WP(C) NO. 20353 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` എൽ.എൽ.എം.സി. കമ്മിറ്റി അംഗങ്ങൾ പരിശശോധിക്കുകയും ചെ യ്തു. കെ .എസ്.ആർ.ഇ.സി. റിപ്പോർട്ടിൽ മരങ്ങളുള്ളതായി പറയുന്നുണ്ടെകിലും പുനഃപരിശശോധനയിലും ഈ സ്ഥലത്തു പലയിടങ്ങളിൽ വെ ള്ളം കെ ട്ടി നിൽക്കുന്നതായും ചതുപ നിലനിൽക്കുന്നതായുംഎൽ.എൽ.എം.സി. കമ്മിറ്റിഅംഗങ്ങൾക്കു ബ ോധ്യപ്പെട്ടു. എന്നാൽഅത്തരത്തിലുള്ളചതുപ്പോവെ ള്ളംകെ ട്ടി നിൽക്കുന്നതതോ ഉപഗ്രഹ ചിത്രങ്ങളിൽ തെ ളിഞ്ഞു കാണുന്നില്ല. ആയതുക ൊണടതന്നെഭൂമിയുടെ നിജസ്ഥിതി, അതിന്റെ സ്വഭാവ സവിശേ ഷതകൾ എന്നിവ ഉപഗ്രഹ ചിത്രങ്ങളിലും ആയതിലെ റിപ്പോർട്ടിലും പ്രതിഫലിച്ചു കാണുന്നില്ല എന എൽ.എൽ.എം.സി. കമ്മിറ്റി അംഗങ്ങൾക പരിശശോധനയിൽ വ്യക്തമായി. ആയതുക ൊണ അപേ ക്ഷകരുടെ ഭൂമിയുടെ സ്വഭാവം തണ്ണീർത്തടമാണെ ന്നുംആയതിനാൽഇത്ഡാറ്റാബാങ്കിൽതന്നെ നിലനിർത്തേണ്ടതാണെ ന്നും ബഹു. ക ോഴിക്കോട് ക ോർപറേഷൻ മേയറുടെ അധ്യക്ഷതയിൽ ചേ ർന്ന നെ ൽവയൽ തണ്ണീർത്തട നിരീക്ഷണ സമിതിയുടെ 13/09/2021 ലെയ യോഗത്തിൽ ഏകകണ്ഠമായിതീരുമാനിച്ചതായിഇതിനാൽഅറിയിക്കുന്നു. “ 8. I am not in a position to accept this report. According to me, this is in total violation of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment. According to me, this is a matter to be reconsidered by the 6[th] respondent and 6[th] respondent should pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the directions issued in Ext.P10. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following ``` WP(C) NO. 20353 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` manner: 1. Ext.P11 order is set aside. 2. The 6[th] respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and obey the directions of this Court in Ext.P10. Accordingly, the 6[th] respondent will pass fresh orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 3. Before passing final orders the 4[th] respondent will inspect the property and submit a report before the LLMC. Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** nak ``` 9 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 20353 OF 2021`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20353/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.927/2009 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS BY THEIR FATHER AND BROTHER. ``` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.07.2017 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTOOLI VILLAGE.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 2308.2017 ISSUED BY THE CONVENOR OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT ON 23.08.2017.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC NO.3537/2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF KERALA ON 28/02/2019.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2019 MADE BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.27926/2019.` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21.10.2019 SEND BY KERALA STATE REMOTE SENDING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` ``` Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2019 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ``` - `Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN COC NO.586/2020.` ``` 10 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 20353 OF 2021`** ``` Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC NO. 1733/2020 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 08.07.2021. Exhibit P11TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KKB 37/01/2021-22 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ABOUT THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ```