Kerala High Court
Sunnymon K vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2025
2025:KER:50411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40689 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SUNNYMON K.,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.KUNJUKUNJU,
THONDALIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
PANAVELY P.O.,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE,
KOLLAM-686002
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
COLLECTORATE,
KOLLAM-691582
4 THE TAHSILDHAR,
PUNALUR TALUK,
TALUK OFFICE,
PUNALUR-691305
WP(C) NO. 40689 OF 2022 : 2 : 2025:KER:50411
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ARACKAL VILLAGE OFFICE,
PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305
6 THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER & CONVENOR,
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KRISHI BHAVAN, EDAMULAKKAL,
EDAYAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691532
7 EDAMULAKKAL GRAMAPANCHAYATH,
EDAMULAKKAL P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691306,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
8 THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIORNMENT CENTRE (KSREC),
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
BY ADV SHRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY,SC,
EDAMULACKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.NIMA JACOB, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 40689 OF 2022 : 3 : 2025:KER:50411
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
===========================
W.P.(C) No.40689 of 2022
============================
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P8, the proceedings of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (hereinafter, for short 'LLMC') rejecting the request of the petitioner to remove his property from the data bank. The petitioner claim to be the owner and in possession of 29.03 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.60/2-2 and 11.74 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.60/2-3 in Block No.30 of Arackal Village, Punalur Taluk, Kollam District. The total extent of the above said land is 40.77 Ares which obtained as per Exts.P1 and P2 sale deed. It is further submitted that the aforesaid land is a pucca dry land wherein no paddy cultivation took place for the last 35 years. In spite of the said fact, the property has been included in WP(C) NO. 40689 OF 2022 : 4 : 2025:KER:50411 the data bank. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted an application before the 6th respondent, the Convenor of the LLMC seeking to remove the property from the data bank. While so, the petitioner received Ext.P4 letter from the 6th respondent intimating that the application submitted by the petitioner for removing the property from the data bank is rejected. The petitioner submits that going by Ext.P5 report of the Kerala Remote Sensing & Environment Centre (hereinafter for short 'KSREC'), major portion of the plot was a 'crop land' and the southern part was partially under 'mixed vegetation/plantation'.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 order was issued without taking into consideration of Ext.P5 KSREC Report and thereupon Ext.P4 was challenged in W.P. (C) No.28547/2021 and the same was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment setting aside the Ext.P4 and directing the 6th respondent to reconsider the application on merits, after taking into WP(C) NO. 40689 OF 2022 : 5 : 2025:KER:50411 consideration the report of KSREC and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months. Later, the matter was reconsidered and by Ext.P8 order, the LLMC decided to maintain the property of the petitioner in the data bank. It is further submitted that Ext.P8 order was issued without properly considering the nature of the land and also taking into consideration Ext.P5, KSREC report.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 6th respondent contending that the property is not a garden land as claimed by the petitioner and the same is included in the data bank as the plots were cultivable paddy fields as on the date of commencement of the Act and the plots still remain as cultivable paddy fields. There is no perennial vegetation in the property as claimed by the petitioner, except for two coconut palms and two other perennial trees located on the border of the plot, closer to the PWD road. Learned Government Pleader would further submits that KSREC report does WP(C) NO. 40689 OF 2022 : 6 : 2025:KER:50411 not say that the property is converted from the cultivable paddy field status and only says that the major part of the plot was under crop land which only means there was agricultural activities in the property as on the date of the Act 2008 and it is common practice that paddy field is used for cultivation of other annual food crops like banana, cassava, etc by forming temporary bunds without altering the basic ecosystem of a cultivable paddy field and that at present, there is perennial vegetation in some of the neighbouring plots and scattered perennial vegetation at the border near the road and the real extent and presence of perennial vegetation can be known only through field verification. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, it is decided that the property cannot be removed from the data bank. Learned Government Pleader produced satellite photographs along with a memo which revealed in page No.3 of the memo that Items marked as item Nos.1 and 2 are perennial WP(C) NO. 40689 OF 2022 : 7 : 2025:KER:50411 vegetation in the northern boundary as well as in southern and south-east boundaries. It is contended that vegetation is only at the boundaries of the property and further submits that the issue was considered as per Ext.R3(e) report of the LLMC earlier and decided not to remove the property from the data bank.
4. Heard the rival contentions on both sides. The specific contention raised by the petitioner in W.P (C) No.28547/2021 is that a decision was taken not to remove the property from the data bank, without going through the KSREC report. Thereupon, this Court directed to reconsider the matter after taking into consideration the report of KSREC. Ext.P5 is the report of the KSREC, its observations and conclusion are reads as follows:-
"The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2004, 2011, 2015 and 2018 for the survey plot.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the plot 60/2 was observed under paddy. The data of year 2004 show that major part of the plot was under crop land. While the southern part was observed partially under mixed WP(C) NO. 40689 OF 2022 : 8 : 2025:KER:50411 vegetation/plantation. The same land use practices was observed to be continued in the data of subsequent years 2011, 2015 and 2018."
Going by the KSREC report, the data of the year 2004 shows that a major part of the plot was under crop land, while the southern part was observed partially under "mixed vegetation/plantation". On the basis of Ext.P5, the contention of the petitioner is that even in the data of the year 2004, a major part of the plot was under
crop land, it should be treated as converted. But in the photographs produced by the learned Government Pleader along with the memo shows that a major portion of the property is still having the features of a paddy land and as contended by the learned Government Pleader the "mixed vegetation/plantation"
referred to in the KSREC report are only in the boundary of the property of the petitioner. When there is a finding in the KSREC report to the effect that the southern part of the property was observed partially under "mixed vegetation/plantation", it was incumbent WP(C) NO. 40689 OF 2022 : 9 : 2025:KER:50411 on the part of the Local Level Monitoring Committee before issuing Ext.P7 order to verify as to the extent of the land covered by "mixed vegetation/plantation" as observed in the KSREC report. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent it is admitted that the real extent and presence of perennial vegetation can be known only through field verification. Whether a further field verification was done to correlate the earlier field verification report with KSREC report is not discernible from the counter affidavit filed. Though, I am not impressed by the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that major portion of the property has been shown as under crop land and therefore the property is to be treated as converted since as per Section 2(ix) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, 'intermediary crops' are permitted in between two paddy cultivation periods. But as regards the finding in the KSREC report that the southernmost portion of the property is WP(C) NO. 40689 OF 2022 : 10 : 2025:KER:50411 observed under "mixed vegetation/plantation", there is no clarity regarding the extent of land in the southern part of the property which is observed partially under "mixed vegetation/plantation" in Ext.P8 proceedings. The same has to be determined by way of a field verification. In order to examine the extent of the property covered by mixed vegetation/plantation on the basis of field verification, I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P8.
Accordingly, the above Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P8 order with a consequential direction to the 6th respondent to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above, strictly to find out the extent of land which is under "mixed vegetation/plantation" as found in the KSREC report.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE nk WP(C) NO. 40689 OF 2022 : 11 : 2025:KER:50411 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40689/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TOTAL EXTENT OF THE ABOVE LAND IS 40.77 ARES. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED VIDE NO. 1185/08 DATED 31.03.2008 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED VIDE NO.2735/08 DATED 22.07.2008.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.KL02060305733/2021 DATED 06.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE NO. EDML 08/2021-2022 DATED 08.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT VIDE NO.A-172/2015/KSREC/008316/18 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.06.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.28547/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION VIDE NO.B 7347/22/L DIS.DATED 02.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.EDML.03/2022
DATED 27.10.2022 PASSED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER 22.04.2025
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT, TO THE
PETITIONER, IN RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF KSREC REPORT EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF LLMC EXHIBIT R3(E) TRUE COPY OF FIELD VERIFICATION