Sainaba w/o Abdul Jabbar v. District Collector, Palakkad and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.10273 OF 2020(H)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SAINABA W/O. ABDUL JABBAR, VARNAMGODE, PALLASSENA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD 678 001.** - **2 THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 101.** - **3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLASSENA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 505.** - **4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD 678 001.** - **5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PALLASSENA CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 505.** - **6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET AND ACT, 2008, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PALLASEENA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 505.** - **7 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE 1ST FLOOR, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** - **8 DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD (DISTRICT LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT) PALAKKAD BY ITS CHAIRMAN-REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD 678 001.** ## **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.10273 OF 2020(H) 2 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.10273 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of June, 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:- _The petitioner herein is the owner and occupier of 15.05 Ares of land in Re-survey No.259/6 of Pallassana Village, in Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District, which has been purchased by her as per Document No.2268/2008 of SRO, Kollengode. Pursuant to the execution of the sale deed referred to above, the petitioner has been paying basic tax for the said property. In that view of the matter the predecessors of the petitioner have long back i.e., in the year 2001 or before that, have converted the land as Dry Land since no paddy cultivation was possible in the said land. Hence knowing about the introduction of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, the petitioner has filed an application for regularization of reclamation of paddy land vide application dated 17.06.2016 before the 6th respondent. Exhibit P2 application was rejected by the 6th respondent vide order_ WP(C).No.10273 OF 2020(H) 3 _dated 28.07.2016 contending that the 6th respondent did not recommend permission for conversion of the land as requested by the petitioner, and also intimated that the petitioner is free to challenge the order in appeal before the 1st respondent. The petitioner was neither heard nor afforded with the opportunity of being heard before issuing the impugned order viz. Exhibit P3 whereby the principles of natural justice have been denied to her and hence she has challenged Exhibit P2 order before the 1st respondent by filing appeal as suggested by the 5th respondent, pursuant to which a hearing notice has been issued by the 1st respondent and the petitioner was heard on 18.08.2017. It is regretfully submitted that even after a lapse of more than 30 months from the date of hearing of the above appeal and more than three years have elapsed from the date of filing appeal and despite issuance of notice evidenced by Exhibit P4, no action seems to have been taken on the said appeal by the 1st respondent and the petitioner is yet to receive any order pursuant to the hearing conducted by the 1st respondent on the appeal mentioned in Exhibit P4. The 5th respondent has passed Exhibit P3 order without getting satellite communication report from the 7th respondent. In fact the procedure for getting_ WP(C).No.10273 OF 2020(H) 4 _Satellite data information and report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre is to the effect that a request is to be made from the concerned Agricultural Officer to the KSREC with enclosures viz., request, location details (Village names, Block No., Survey No., Sub Division and FMB) etc. along with email ids and phone numbers of both Agricultural Officer and concerned parties. If data is available the Agricultural Officer will be informed to remit fees @ Rs.1500/- per case and the report will be sent to the Agricultural Officer concerned. The petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.4424/2020 before this Court, which is pending. In the mean time the 1st respondent has issued an order dated 22.02.2020 rejecting the appeal mentioned in Exhibit P4 notice after a lapse of more than 3 years from the date of hearing without taking note of the dictum laid down by this Court in the matter of_ _**Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others reported in 2020(2)KHC 94 (DB)** ._ It is in the light of the above factual averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:- - _“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate_ WP(C).No.10273 OF 2020(H) 5 _writ or order quashing Exhibit P6 order dated 22.02.2020 passed by 1st respondent ignoring the dictum laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Other reported in 2020(2) KHC 94 (DB) without hearing the petitioner and without affording her with an opportunity of being heard_ _And_ _ii) To pass such orders or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice”_ 2. Heard Sri.G. Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 3. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the decision of the 8[th] respondent-District Level Authorized Committee on the basis of the recommendations of the 6[th] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee as per Ext.P-3, whereby permission sought for by the petitioner for construction of a residential building in the subject property in terms of Section 9(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, has been rejected. Further, it appears that, the said decision of respondents 8 and 6 has been confirmed now by the 1[st] respondent-District Collector in Ext.P-6 Appellate Order dated 22.02.2020. 4. The main complaint of the petitioner is that the 6[th] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee, while passing the impugned Ext.P-3 order, has not permitted the petitioner to make WP(C).No.10273 OF 2020(H) 6 available the satellite pictures of the subject property from the 7[th] respondent-expert Agency, viz., Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC), Thiruvananthapuram, and that if such satellite pictures had been obtained, then certainly it would reveal that almost all the adjoining properties are already converted and that there are no such adjoining paddy lands and that the permission if granted to the petitioner under Section 9(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, will not, in any manner, detrimentally affect the ecological conditions of the locality, etc. Further that the 1[st] respondentDistrict Collector had heard the petitioner on the appeal about three years back and thereafter the impugned Ext.P-6 Appellate Order has been issued on 22.02.2020, without considering the contention of the petitioner that non-production of satellite pictures would vitiate the impugned proceedings and that the matter requires reconsideration. 5. The petitioner would assert the case that almost all the adjoining properties near to the petitioner's property have been converted as garden land/purayidom much prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and that therefore, there is no question of any WP(C).No.10273 OF 2020(H) 7 detrimentally affecting the ecological or environmental factors as regards to any such adjoining land if permission is granted to the petitioner in terms of Section 9(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It is submitted that the appeal was considered by the 1[st] respondent-District Collector about three years back and now Ext.P-6 order has been passed on 22.02.2020 rejecting the appeal. 6. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the 6[th] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee and the 8[th] respondent-District Level Authorised Committee should have permitted the petitioner to take recourse to the provisions for making available the satellite pictures from the expert Agency, so that a holistic and comprehensive picture of the scenario is duly obtained and the decision making process is done in a fair manner and after taking into consideration all relevant aspects. 7. In that view of the matter it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-3 order dated 28.07.2016, issued by the 6[th] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee as well as the consequential rejection order passed by the 6[th] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee, rendered on 29.06.2017, referred to WP(C).No.10273 OF 2020(H) 8 in Ext.P-6 as well as the impugned Ext.P-6 Appellate Order dated 22.02.2020 issued by the 1[st] respondent-District Collector will stand set aside and quashed. The application of the petitioner as per Ext.P-2 dated 17.06.2016 for such permission will stand remitted to the 6[th] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee for consideration of the matter afresh. The 5[th] respondentAgricultural Officer, who is the Ex-officio Convenor of the 6[th] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee, will immediately permit the petitioner to pay the requisite fee for securing satellite pictures from the above said expert Agency and thereafter the 5[th] respondent-Agricultural Officer should send the necessary requisition to the 7[th] respondent-Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC), Thiruvananthapuram, to ensure that the satellite pictures of the subject property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P-2 application are duly obtained. The 5[th] respondent-Agricultural Officer will take steps in that regard within ten days from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, provided the petitioner pays the prescribed fee in that regard and on receiving the requisition, the 7[th] respondentKerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), Thiruvananthapuram, will ensure that the satellite pictures of the WP(C).No.10273 OF 2020(H) 9 subject property are forwarded to the 5[th] respondent-Agricultural Officer within two months from the date of receipt of requisition in that regard. 8. Without waiting for receipt of satellite pictures, the 6[th] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee, will conduct inspection with due prior notice to the petitioner and may ensure that copy of the inspection report is given to the petitioner in advance. After receipt of satellite pictures and expert opinion of the KSREC, the 6th respondentLocal Level Monitoring Committee will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and thereafter should take a considered decision as to the recommendations made in terms of Section 5(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, on the matters raised in Ext.-P-2 application, and after duly ascertaining as to whether there are adjoining paddy lands and as to whether the parameters under Section 9(8) are duly satisfied, etc., and after taking due note of the satellite pictures. The recommendations of the 6[th] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee should be so duly rendered within two months from the date of receipt of the satellite pictures. Thereupon the 6[th] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee will forward the recommendations in the matter to the 8[th] respondent-District Level Authorised Committee, Palakkad, and copy of the same should also be given to the petitioner in advance. Thereafter WP(C).No.10273 OF 2020(H) 10 the 8[th] respondent-District Level Authorised Committee, will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through authorised representative/counsel, if any, and should take a final decision in the matter on the plea made by the petitioner in Ext.P-2 application, without much delay preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the proceedings containing the recommendations of the 6[th] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee. 8. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this judgment as well as a copies of the memorandum of this writ petition (civil) along with all the exhibits to respondents 6 to 8, for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. ## **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Skk//27062020 WP(C).No.10273 OF 2020(H) 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 08.05.2019 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLASSENA VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.06.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 02.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR FOR A HEARING.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEDURE FOR GETTING SATELLITE DATA INFORMATION AND REPORT FROM 7TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCPKD/1020/LRG.1 DATED 22.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**