Kerala High Court
T.G.Sunil vs The District Collector on 14 September, 2021
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 27200 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
1 T.G.SUNIL,
AGED 56 YEARS,
KRISHNA GARDENS, SANKARANANDASRAMAM ROAD,
ERNAKULAM NORTH, COCHIN-682 018.
2 REENA SUNIL,
W/O.T.G.SUNIL, KRISHNA GARDENS,
SANKARANANDASRAMAM ROAD,
ERNAKULAM NORTH, COCHIN-682 018.
BY ADVS.
P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
SMT.K.VIDYA
SHRI.SATHEESH V.T.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682 030.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
K.B.JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI P.O.,
COCHIN-682 001.
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 301.
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
UDAYAMPEROOR P.O.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 301.
5 THE TAHSILDAR (L.R),
TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR,
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN-682 011.
WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021
:2 :
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE,
UDAYAMPEROOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 307.
Addl.7 SHYMON.M.P.,
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN,
MADATHIKATTIL HOUSE,
POOTHOTTA, PIN - 682 307.
[ADDITIONAL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
28.07.2021 IN I.A.NO.3/2021 IN WP(C)27200/2020.]
BY ADVS.
SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
R4 BY SMT.C.G.BINDU
C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
T.K.DEVARAJAN
PAUL C THOMAS
FRANKLIN ARACKAL
M.B.SOORI
BABU M.
NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN
HAARIS MOOSA
DEVYANI
NIKHITA ANN REBELLO
ADESH JOSHI
R1-6 BY SRI.K.P. JAYACHANDRAN, AAG
SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).6685/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021
:3 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/23RD BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 6685 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
MYTHILI C.R.,
AGED 82 YEARS,
D/O.RAGHAVAN,'PRANAVAM', T.D.ROAD,
KOCHI-682035, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
SHRI.SATHEESH V.T.
SMT.RANI MADHU
SMT.MANJARI G.B.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD.P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI.P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682001.
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, UDAYAMPEROOR.P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682301.
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
UDAYAMPEROOR.P.O,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
THE AGRICULTURALL OFFICER,
UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682301.
5 THE TAHSILDAR(LR),
TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNOOR, PARK AVENUE ROAD,
MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682011.
WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021
:4 :
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE, UDAYAMPEROOR.P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682307.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).27200/2020, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021
:5 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 14th day of September, 2021 These writ petitions are based on same set of facts and hence are heard together and being disposed of by a common judgment. In WP(C) No.27200/2020, the petitioners seek to quash Ext.P18 and to direct the 4 th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 application dated 22.08.2017 in accordance with law and in the light of Ext.P12 report of the KSRSEC. Certain incidental and consequential reliefs are also sought for. The petitioner in WP(C) No.6685/2021 seeks to set aside Ext.P21 decision of the 4 th respondent and to declare that the property of the petitioner in Survey No.801/1 of Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk is garden land and is liable to be excluded from the Data Bank.
2. In WP(C) No.27200/2020, petitioners 1 and 2 state that they are joint owners of 1.4239 Hectares of land in old Survey No.7/1 (New Survey No.801/1) in Manakunnam WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 :6 : Village. The property was purchased as per Ext.P1 Sale Deed on 22.02.1993. The land is lying contiguously with the land of the mother of the 1st petitioner (who is the petitioner in WP(C) No.6685/2021) in Survey No.801/1 having an extent of 1.4239 Hectares. On 11.12.2006, the petitioners and the mother submitted Ext.P3 application to the 1 st respondent- District Collector seeking permission to convert the entire land as dry land for coconut cultivation.
3. The 3rd respondent-Agricultural Officer in Ext.P4 letter dated 15.06.2007 informed that the land of the petitioners and of the mother is lying as "tharisu" for more than 12 years and is unfit for paddy cultivation. The Additional Tahsildar in Ext.P5 letter dated 26.07.2007 informed the 2 nd respondent-RDO that the land is not cultivated for the last more than 25 years and further that the major portion of the land is lying as dry land and the remaining land is lying as fallow land. It was also stated that there is no paddy cultivation in the aforesaid land since 1969. The 2 nd respondent also, as per Ext.P6 letter dated 29.09.2007, WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 :7 : informed the 1st respondent that there is no paddy cultivation in the land of the petitioners and of the mother.
4. Permission to use the land for other purposes contemplated under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 is required only if the land has been cultivated for a continuous period of three years at any time after the commencement of KLU Order on 17.06.1967. Therefore, by Ext.P7 letter dated 15.02.2008, the 1 st respondent informed the petitioners that the application to convert the 2.8478 Hectares of land of the petitioners does not come within the purview of KLU Order. After enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the aforesaid 2.8478 Hectares of land was included in the draft Data Bank and shown as converted land, having 30 years old coconut trees. However, when the Data Bank was finally published, a portion of the land of the petitioners and of the mother was shown as paddy land.
5. In the case of petitioners 1 and 2, 72 Ares of land was shown as converted land and 70 Ares were shown as WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 :8 : paddy land. In the case of the mother, 70 Ares were shown as converted land and 72 Ares were shown as paddy land. The petitioners submitted Ext.P10 application to the Local Level Monitoring Committee seeking to delete 70 Ares of land wrongly shown as paddy land in the Data Bank. The mother filed WP(C) No.8637/2017. In the said writ petition, this Court passed Ext.P11 interim direction to the Agricultural Officer to get the Report as to the nature of the land as on the date of commencement of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 from KSREC. The LLMC was directed to submit its report to this Court.
6. Ext.P12 report of the KSREC observed that the plot was predominantly under mixed vegetation/plantation with waterlogged area towards the south region and agricultural fallow land in the imagery of 22.08.2008 and that the same trend of land use continued in the images of 2011, 2013 and 2016. In Ext.P12, it was further observed that in 1967 data, the plot was observed under paddy land and the satellite images of Survey No.801/1 was observed as predominantly of WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 :9 : mixed vegetation/plantation with a waterlogged area towards the southern region and agricultural fallow land in the imagery of 2008, which evidently shows that the land was converted long ago. The writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P13 judgment directing the LLMC to pass orders on the strength of satellite images.
7. Based on the directions contained in Ext.P13 judgment, the petitioners filed applications for reassessment of basic tax. The 5th respondent rejected the application filed by the mother as per Exts.P15 and directed that permission under KLU should be obtained before applying for reassessment of tax. Ext.P14 order was quashed by this Court as per Ext.P15 judgment in WP(C) No.22021/2019. The 5th respondent was directed to identify the 70 Ares of land of the mother and reassess the same as garden land. The 1 st petitioner's mother was permitted to carry out converted activities in the said land. As regards the remaining 72.39 Ares of land, the LLMC was directed to take a decision. The 4th respondent-LLMC has not taken a decision so far. WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 10 :
8. The petitioners state that as far as the 72 Ares of converted land of the petitioners, the District Collector has held that the KLU Order will not apply and hence the petitioners are entitled to get the basic tax in respect of the said land reassessed. The petitioners therefore submitted Ext.P16 application dated 20.11.2020 to the 5 th respondent- Tahsildar. The 4th respondent-LLMC passed Ext.P18 order erroneously finding that a portion of the property of the petitioners is water logged, another portion is paddy land and yet another portion is paddy land suitable for paddy cultivation. The 4th respondent further held that the land is to be measured and demarcated to find out which portion is to be excluded from the Data Bank. The petitioners submit that the findings in Ext.P18 go against Ext.P15 judgment and Ext.P12 KSREC report.
9. In the case of the mother, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No.6685/2021, the 4 th respondent concluded that a portion of the Kayal on the south side protrudes inside her property and some portion is waterlogged. Some property WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 11 : remains as marshy land. The 4th respondent held that these portions are to be measured and demarcated to find out which portion is liable to be excluded from the Data Bank.
10. The 3rd respondent-Agricultural Officer filed a statement in WP(C) No.27200/2020. The 3 rd respondent stated that the land of the petitioner is included in the Data Bank published by the Udayamperur Grama Panchayat. In the case of petitioners 1 and 2, an extent of 72 Ares of property is classified as converted land. Similarly, an extent of 70.06 Ares of property is shown as paddy land.
11. The 3rd respondent filed an additional statement. The 3rd respondent stated that the Tahsildar was asked to reassess 70 Ares of dry land. As regards the remaining 72.39 Ares of land, the petitioner was asked to file an application to correct the entry in the Data Bank. The Local Level Monitoring Committee has to consider the application. The Principal Agricultural Officer, as per Ext.P4, has already reported that the land is not fit for paddy cultivation. This was reiterated by the Tahsildar in Ext.P5. The Revenue Divisional WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 12 : Officer also found that the land is not fit for paddy cultivation. As per the report of the earlier LLMC, the land is a converted land prior to 2008.
12. The additional 7th respondent, who is a Ward Member of Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat, filed a Memo dated 04.08.2021 and opposed the writ petition. The additional 7th respondent argued that definition of paddy land under Section 2(xii) includes land suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals as paddy land. Land described as paddy under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 is to be determined on the basis of facts as they exist on ground reality.
13. The conclusion in the KSREC report is that in the land, there is a water logged area towards south region and agricultural fallow land, in 2008 imagery. Therefore, agricultural fallow land can be inferred as paddy land going by the definition of paddy land contained in the 2008 Act, WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 13 : contended the learned counsel for the additional 7 th respondent. Ground realities cannot be ascertained with the help of satellite pictures alone. Findings of LLMC as regards current nature of land is that on south side of land, it is suitable for pokkali cultivation. Final report of LLMC is that some extent of land is still paddy land suitable for paddy cultivation and the same need to be identified with the help of Taluk Surveyor. Report of KSREC is to be used only as an aid to arrive at conclusions by the LLMC. The LLMC, after evaluating the ground realities, has the liberty to find that the land is paddy land. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed, contended the learned counsel for the additional 7th respondent.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 6 and the learned counsel for the additional 7 th respondent.
15. The petitioner in WP(C) No.6685/2021 is the mother and petitioners 1 and 2 in WP(C) No.27200/2020 are her son and daughter-in-law respectively. They together own WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 14 : 2.8478 Hectares of land lying contiguously as a single plot in the same Survey Number in Manakunnam Village. They have moved together for reliefs and their applications are declined for the same reasons. The KSREC reports relating to them are same. The facts and exhibits therefore are referred to in this judgment as stated/marked in WP(C) No.27200/2020.
16. The land of the petitioners was not cultivated since 1965. Subsequently, the land was reclaimed partially and was cultivated with coconut trees. According to the petitioners, there were about 500 coconut trees, 40 year old, as on 11.12.2006. The petitioners in both the writ petitions together submitted Ext.P3 application dated 11.12.2006 to the District Collector, seeking permission to convert the entire extent of land as garden land for coconut cultivation.
17. The Principal Agricultural Officer in his Ext.P4 letter informed that the 2.8445 Hectares land in Survey No.801/1 is not cultivated with paddy and has been lying fallow for about the last 12 years. There is a specific finding in Ext.P4 that the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation and that in future with WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 15 : infrastructure development, it can be made cultivable. The Additional Tahsildar gave Ext.P5 report to the effect that the land is not cultivated for last 25 years; that there are large number of coconut trees 40 years old; that a good portion of the land is dry land; that there is no adjoining cultivated land; that there is a building in the land; that conversion of the land will not adversely affect cultivation in the nearby areas and that there is no likelihood of water logging. Based on the reports, the RDO issued Ext.P6 letter to the District Collector recommending that conversion can be permitted under KLU Order on condition that water channels should be retained for free flow of water.
18. The District Collector, however, passed Ext.P7 order holding that the 2.8445 Hectares of land would not come under the KLU Order, 1967 and hence KLU Order is not necessary in the case. The said decision was presumably for the reason that the land was not cultivated with any food crop for a continuous period of three years after the commencement of KLU Order, 1967. But, later, in 2008, when WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 16 : the Draft Data Bank was published, the land was included in the Draft Data Bank indicating that it is a converted land planted with coconut trees, 30 year old by then. To the predicament of the petitioners, in the final Data Bank, 70 Ares of land of the mother was shown as converted land and 72 Ares as paddy land. In the case of petitioners in WP(C) No.27200/2020, 72 Ares of the land was shown as converted land and 72 Ares as paddy land. The petitioners in both the writ petitions therefore submitted applications to remove the land from Data Bank.
19. Thereafter, pursuant to Ext.P11 interim order of this Court in WP(C) No.8637/2017, Ext.P12 report was obtained from KSREC which certified that the plot was predominantly under mixed vegetation/plantation with water logged areas and fallow land in some parts, as on 22.08.2008 and the same trend continued in 2011, 2013 and 2016. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted applications for reassessment of Basic Tax. The Tahsildar rejected the applications holding that there is no order under the KLU in favour of the petitioners WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 17 : and hence application should be filed before the RDO under the Act, 2008.
20. The said order of the Tahsildar was in conflict with Ext.P7 order of the District Collector. In WP(C) No.22021/2019, this Court held that the Tahsildar is bound to reassess the land found to be converted land. The boundaries of converted land should be identified. As regards the remaining land which is included in the Data Bank as paddy land, the LLMC was directed to consider the request for removal of said land from Data Bank. Thereupon, the LLMC as per Ext.P18 rejected the application for removal of land included as paddy land, from the Data Bank.
21. The reasons for rejection as contained in Ext.P18 are that a portion of the Kayal is protruding inside the property; that there is a Thodu in the property with water flow; that some portion of the land is marshy and waterlogged, which is suitable for Pokkali cultivation and that small types of trees growing on water, bush trees and grass were seen. These findings and reasons have to be compared with earlier WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 18 : conclusions arrived at by various statutory authorities and have to be assessed for their sustainability based on the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder and the law laid down by this Court in various judgments having presidential value.
22. In Ext.P4 report dated 15.06.2007 of the Principal Agricultural Officer made on the basis of an inspection by Agricultural Assistant Director, it has been stated that the land is lying fallow without paddy cultivation for the last 12 years. The further finding is that the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation at present (in 2007). The Additional Tahsildar submitted Ext P5 report after a site inspection to the effect that for last 25 years there was no paddy cultivation; that there are a large number of coconut trees and that substantial portion of the land is dry land. Two sides of the property are bound by roads. There is a building and the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. It was further reported that the land can be permitted to be converted and there is no likelihood of water WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 19 : logging due to conversion.
23. The Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext.P6 report made after his inspection also reported that the land is substantially converted, and is not cultivated with paddy for long years. The land is not suitable for paddy cultivation and the land can be permitted to be converted retaining the water chals. The District Collector in Ext.P7 stated that no KLU Order for conversion is warranted in respect of the land. In spite of the afore findings, when Draft Data Bank was prepared, the land of the petitioners were included in the Draft Data Bank with the remark that the land is converted and is having 30 years old coconut trees. When Data Bank was finally published, 70 Ares of land of the petitioners in WP(C) No.27200/2020 and 72 Ares of the petitioner in WP(C) No.6685/2021 were included as paddy land.
24. Subsequently, the KSREC submitted Ext.P12 report. The Observations and Conclusions in the report read as follows:
"The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 20 : different satellite data sets of 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2016 for the survey plot.
In 1967 data, the plot was observed under paddy land. The satellite imageries of survey number 801/1 was observed predominantly under mixed vegetation/plantation with a water logged area towards the southern region and agricultural fallow land in the imagery of 2008. The same trend of landuse has been continued in the imageries of 2011, 2013 and 2016."
It is obvious from Ext.P12 KSREC Report that the land in question is predominantly under mixed vegetation/plantation with some waterlogged area and fallow land.
25. This Court in Ext.P15 judgment in WP(C) No.22021/2019 directed the LLMC to consider the request for removal of the land from Data Bank in the light of the KSREC report. The LLMC has given a go bye to the KSREC report as also the earlier findings of various statutory authorities made after site inspections, including one made by the Principal Agricultural Officer. The LLMC held that some portion of the property is waterlogged, some portion is marshy land and hence a survey is to be conducted before removing any portion of the land from Data Bank.
WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 21 :
26. The findings and conclusions arrived at by the LLMC cannot stand legal scrutiny. The unequivocal finding of authorities as contained in Exts.P4 to P7 is that the land is converted with coconut tree planted and a constructed building and that it is not cultivated for the last 30 years. The observation that the land can be used for Pokkali cultivation when infrastructure is developed in future, cannot be a reason not to delete the land from Data Bank since the applications will have to be considered on the basis of the nature of the land as is existing.
27. In these cases, the LLMC appears to be bent upon to thwart the attempt of the petitioners to use the land for other agricultural purposes. This is because, after holding site inspections, the Principal Agricultural Officer (in 2007), the Additional Tahsildar (in 2007), the Agricultural Assistant Director (in 2007) and the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. None of the respondents have a case that there is change in the present condition due to infrastructure development, making the land WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 22 : suitable for paddy cultivation now. The KSREC report is also in tune with the afore findings. While the facts being so, the finding of the Local Level Monitoring Committee as to the cultivability of the land with paddy, is abstruse. It has to be noted that the LLMC does not consist of any expert in the field of agriculture above the status of Principal Agricultural Officer.
28. Even ignoring all the earlier reports of the statutory authorities contained in Exts.P4 to P7, the LLMC could not have arrived at such conclusions. The LLMC has strained itself to reject the scientific data in the form of KSREC report, but the findings of the LLMC are not convincing. The clear finding in KSREC report is that the land is predominantly of mixed vegetation and plantation, with some portion being waterlogged and some fallow land. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Mather Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector [2020 (2) KLT 192] that merely because property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the land, it cannot be termed as wet land or fallow land under the WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 23 : Act, 2008.
29. In the case of the land of the petitioners, the land is near a Kayal and that can be a reason for water logging or marshy land. For the said reason alone, there cannot be a conclusion that the land is paddy land. This finding has to be juxtaposed with the categoric findings of the agricultural and revenue authorities that the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. This Court has held in the judgment in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala [2020 (5) KHC 490] that Data Bank to be prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 is the Data Bank of cultivable paddy lands existing as on the date of coming into force of the Rules. This Court in Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2021 (1) KLT 433] has held that it is not the capability of using the land that matters and it is only the character and fitness of land as available on 12.08.2008 that matters to include or exclude.
30. As per Section 2(xii) of the Act, 2008, "paddy land"
means all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 24 : cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals. It is evident that for a fallow land to fall under the definition, such fallow land should be suitable for paddy cultivation. In the afore circumstances, in view of the categoric findings made in Exts.P4 to P7 and in the light of the conclusions of the KSREC, this Court is of the firm opinion that Ext.P18 proceedings of the LLMC cannot be sustained.
Ext.P18 is therefore set aside. It is declared that the entire land of the petitioners in these writ petitions, in Survey No.801/1 in Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk is liable to be excluded from the Data Bank.
31. The petitioners purchased the property in the year 1993. The petitioners have been striving to convert the land for other purposes. The applications filed by the petitioners on 11.12.2006 under Clause 6 of the KLU Order was disposed of by the District Collector holding that no order under KLU is required for converting the land. Yet the land was erroneously included in the Data Bank despite the fact that it was not WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 25 : cultivated with paddy for long years and it was not cultivable with paddy either in the year 2008 when the Act, 2008 came into force, as found in Exts.P4 to P7. The petitioners have been struggling for long to get the land removed from Data Bank.
In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 4th respondent-LLMC to reconsider the applications of the petitioners strictly in the light of Exts.P4 to P8, Ext.P12 KSREC report and the findings of this Court contained hereinabove and take decision afresh within a period of one month.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/07.09.2021 WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 26 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27200/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.535/1993 DATED 20.2.1993.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.12.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND SMT. MYTHILI TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.TB(1)767-07 DATED 15.6.2007 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3-507/07
DATED 26.7.2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL
TAHSILDAR, ERNAKULAM TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.K-4784/07
DATED 29.9.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.L5-
5545107K.DIS DATED 15.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 23.2.2012 OF TEH SECRETARY, UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.8.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.3.2017 IN WPC NO.8637/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KERALA
STATE REMOTE SENSIONG & ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE IN RESPECT OF THE LIE AND NATURE
OF THE LAND IN SY.NO.801/1, IN
MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE.
WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021
: 27 :
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.11.2017 IN WPC NO.8637/2017 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H3-757/18
DATED 23.2.2019 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
17.11.2020 IN WPC NO.22021/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PETITIONERS LAND IN SY.NO.801/1 IN MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 10.2.2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30.03.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 28 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6685/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.534/93 DATED 20.02.1993.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16.08.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANAKKUNNAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
11.12.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HER SON AND DAUGHTER IN LAW TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.TB(1)767-07
DATED 15-06-2007 OF THE PRINCIPAL
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H3-507-07
DATED 26.07.2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL
TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.K-4784/07
DATED 29.09.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED
15.10.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(A)11- 55785/05 DATED 10.03.2006 OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(A)11-
55786/05 DATED 10.03.2006 OF THE LAND
REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 19.12.2007 IN
WP(C)NO.37866 OF 2007
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L5-
55451/07/K.DIS DATED 15.02.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK OF UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
WP(C) Nos.27200/2020 & 6685/2021 : 29 : EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 23.02.2012 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK OF UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2017
IN WP(C)NO.8637 OF 2017 OF THE
HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF KSREC DATED
19.09.2017.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
22.11.2017 OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2017 IN WP(C)NO.8637 OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22.08.2017 BEFORE THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, UDAYAMPERUR.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND IN R.S.NO.801/1 IN MANAKKUNNAM VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2020 IN W.P.(C)NO.22021/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 10.02.2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
SR