Kerala High Court
Lathika.K.P @ Lathika Karthikeyan vs The Local Level Monitoring Committee on 20 November, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.36337 OF 2018(N)
PETITIONERS:
1 LATHIKA.K.P @ LATHIKA KARTHIKEYAN,
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O KARTHIKEYAN, NIRMALYAM, 6/117, CHALAD P.O,
PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR - 670014.
2 MANJUKALA G.K.,
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O.KARTHIKEYAN, NIRMALYAM, 6/117, CHALAD P.O.,
PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR- 670014.
3 MANASA G.K @ VISHNUPRIYA,
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O.KARTHIKEYAN, NIRMALYAM, 6/117, CHALAD P.O.,
PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR- 670014.
BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENT:
THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
FOR THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
THRISSUR - 680001.
SR.GP. K.AMMINIKUTTY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.36337 OF 2018(N)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P8 decision taken by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (Paddy Land Act for short), as per which, their property having an extent of 0.5949 hectors, comprised of in Re.Survey No.43/2 of Chembukavu Village, has been found not eligible to be deleted from the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the said Act.
2. According to the petitioners, the property in question is remaining as a landlocked one with constructions on all sides, but that they were unable to develop it for the last several years on account of the fact that certain civil litigations were pending between its sharers. They say that the civil litigations are now over and that they intend to construct a building on this property, but since it has been included as a "paddy land" in the Data Bank incorrectly, they moved an application before the LLMC to have it removed; however, that it has been now rejected through Ext.P8 decision. The petitioners assert that the property in question is a "garden land" having no attributes of a "paddy land", but that WP(C).No.36337 OF 2018(N) 3 the LLMC appears to have been swayed by the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), which is also part of Ext.P8, wherein the nature of the property has been described as under:
" In 1967 data, the plot was observed under paddy. The survey plot is bordered by roads on west and north sides. The satellite imageries of survey numbers 43/2 was observed as fallow land with mixed vegetation/plantation toward the south and eastern sides in the data of 2007. the same trend of land use practices were observed to be continued in the data significant year as 2011, 2014 and 2017."
The petitioners say that going by the description as afore noticed by the KSREC, the property in question can never be construed as a "Paddy Land" and therefore, that the decision of the LLMC be set aside and they are directed to reconsider the matter leading to an appropriate order, without any further delay.
3. In response, the learned Government Pleader-Smt. K.Amminikutty, submits that, as is evident from Ext.P8 decision, the property of the petitioners has been decided to be retained in the Data Bank, since it was found on site inspection that there are water channels on its west and south and also because it is WP(C).No.36337 OF 2018(N) 4 remaining as a fallow land. She asserts that going by the provisions of the Paddy Land Act and in particular Section 2(xii) thereof, a "paddy land" means all types of land where paddy is cultivated once in a year or is suitable for paddy cultivation but left uncultivated and fallow; and therefore, that since the property in question has found to be a fallow land, the LLMC was justified in deciding to retain it in the Data Bank. She, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. I have examined the materials available on record and have also carefully analysed the submissions made by the learned counsel as afore.
5. There is no doubt that, going by Section 2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act, a fallow land, which is capable of paddy cultivation, alone can be construed to be a "paddy land" under the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, because the land is seem to be fallow, it does not automatically mean that same is to be construed as a "paddy land", particularly when the LLMC has not been able to ascertain whether it is suitable for paddy cultivation. Going by the definition of "paddy land" as afore, the LMC could not have taken the impugned decision, unless they were satisfied that the property in question is capable of being WP(C).No.36337 OF 2018(N) 5 put to paddy cultivation.
6. However, the KSREC report afore extracted clearly shows that for the last several decades the land in question has been observed as a fallow land with mixed vegetation/plantation, indicating that it has been filled up and is incapable of paddy cultivation in the future. Of course, this is only a prima facie view that I gather from the report of the KSREC and it will be up to the LLMC to verify this through a proper enquiry.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P8 decision of the LLMC, to the extent to which it relates to the property in question; and consequentially direct the LLMC to reconsider the matter, adverting to the definition of the word " paddy land" in the Paddy Land Act and then take a final decision thereon based on the KSREC report, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
nak JUDGE
WP(C).No.36337 OF 2018(N)
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.452/17 OF
S.R.O.AYYANTHOLE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN
SY.NO.43/2.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.47/P AND 26/P. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.43/2.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.42/P AND 26/P. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2018 IN W.P(C)NO.10437 OF 2018.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF THE KSREC AND THE LETTER FORWARDING THE SAME TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.05.2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2018 IN W.P(C)NO.26643 OF 2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3883 OF 2016.
//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE