Kerala High Court
A.V.Sivadas vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 21 October, 2022
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 9019 OF 2012
PETITIONER:
A.V.SIVADAS, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. VELUKUTTY, AKLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLIMATTOM VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, VALLIMATTOM P.O., PIN-680123.
BY ADV SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
TRICHUR 680 688
2 SMT. SARASWATHY
W/O. MURALI, MAMBRA HOUSE,
PADIYOOR-680 688.
3 MURALI, S/O. KUNJAN,
MAMBRA HOUSE, PADIYOOR-680688.
BY ADV SMT.N.V.SANDHYA
R1 - SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.9019 of 2012
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of October 2022 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P17 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur - the first respondent dated 16.7.2011. Apparently, Ext.P17 order is passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the basis of a complaint submitted by Smt.Saraswathy, W/o Murali, Mambra House, Padiyoor - second respondent as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. According to the second respondent, the petitioner herein converted a paddy field, without securing orders from the statutory authorities. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after considering the rival submissions and probably as per the directions issued by this court in W.P.(C)14822/2011, has passed the orders after taking note of the report submitted by the Village Officer. The report submitted by the Village Officer to the Revenue Divisional Officer is to the following effect:
"The land in question lies in the same level of neighbouring dry lands and roads. There are four coconut trees aged 30 years, arecanut trees and plantains on the plot. There are no canals or chals through the property. No ponds in the property. The land is unfit for cultivation of paddy. Rain water from their plots does not flow through the property in question." W.P.(C)No.9019 of 2012
:: 3 ::
2. Taking into consideration the said report of the Village Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued the following order:
"As per section 7 of the KLU order, the Revenue Divisional Officer can direct a landowner to cultivate the land with specified food crop by issuing Form E. If the person fails to comply with Form E, the Revenue Divisional Officer can sell the right to cultivate the land by issuing Form F. The reports from the Special Village Officer and Village Officer, Padiyoor make it clear that the land is unfit for paddy cultivation. The fact that there are coconut trees aged 30 years on the land supports the contentions of Sri.Sivadas that the land was converted 30 years ago. Since there is no paddy cultivation around the property, it will not be wise to direct the party to cultivate paddy in the 10.82 cents possessed by him under KLU Order, 1967 in the light of the Act 28/08. Besides, Ext.P1 petition dated 3-11-2008 of Smt.Saraswathy does not contain any request to direct the parties to cultivate the land with paddy under KLU order. Both the parties have been heard by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 5-7-2011 in pursuance of the judgment dated 2-6-2011 of the Hon.High Court in WP(C)14822/2011.
In the light of the request contained in the Ext.P1 petition dated 3-4-2008, I hereby direct Sri.Sivadas and the owners of the property not to convert it for any other purpose. This has to be treated as a direction issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 12(2)(b) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and WetLand Act, 2008. The case is accordingly decided finally."
3. On a reading of the report of the Village Officer as well as the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, what I could gather is that the Revenue Divisional Officer was of the opinion that the property is already W.P.(C)No.9019 of 2012 :: 4 ::
converted 30 years before and any request to direct the parties to cultivate land under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 may not be a feasible one. However, for reasons best known to the Revenue Divisional Officer, action was suo motu initiated under Section 12(2)(b) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and directed the petitioner not to convert it for any other purpose. Evidently, there was no application from the petitioner for conversion of the property for purposes other than paddy cultivation and other agricultural operations. It is in the said background that the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P17 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
4. Today when the matter is taken up, learned Government Pleader has produced the gazette notification issued by the Padiyoor Grama Panchayat dated 30.11.2020 and submitted that the property of the petitioner situated in 609/1 of Padiyoor Village, measuring 10 cents and 820/1000 cents, is not included in the data bank constituted as per the provisions of the Act, 2008.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.S.Bharathan and learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Joby Joseph. Even though notice is served on the party respondents, there is no appearance. W.P.(C)No.9019 of 2012
:: 5 ::
6. On a perusal of Ext.P17 order, what I could understand is that the Revenue Divisional Officer has arrived at a finding that the property was converted 30 years before and it is planted with coconut trees. It is also pointed out that there is no paddy cultivation around the property and thereupon entered into a finding that it would not be wise to direct the party to cultivate paddy in 10.82 cents possessed by him by invoking the powers conferred under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. However, certain reference is made to the Act 2008 also. In my view, even if the property is not included in the data bank and if it is remaining as a paddy field in the Basic Tax Register, necessarily the paddy field owner has to submit an application in accordance with Section 27A read with Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 respectively.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider any such application untrammeled by any adverse observations contained in Ext.P17 order by suo motu invoking the power under Rule 12(2)(b) of the Rules, 2008. W.P.(C)No.9019 of 2012
:: 6 ::
8. After evaluating the rival submissions, I am of the considered opinion that when the property is not included in the data bank as is contemplated under the provisions of Act, 2008 petitioner is at liberty to submit a suitable application in accordance with Section 27A of Act, 2008 and Rule 12(2) of Rule, 2008. The said liberty of the petitioner cannot be interdicted by the Revenue Divisional Officer in a proceeding instituted by a third party alleging violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. It is also equally important to note that the Revenue Divisional Officer has entered the entire findings in favour of the petitioner however, ultimately directed the petitioner not to convert the property for any other purpose. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Ext.P17 order so far as interdicting the petitioner from conversion by the suo motu action of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes arbitrary and illegal and it was not a subject matter for consideration before the Revenue Divisional Officer.
9. In that view of the matter, I set aside that portion of Ext.P17 wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer has exercised the power under Rule 12(2) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Consequently the liberty of the petitioner to file suitable application W.P.(C)No.9019 of 2012 :: 7 ::
in accordance with the provisions of Act 2008 before the statutory authority is left open. If any such application is filed, the respective statutory authority shall consider the said application in accordance with law and also taking into account the ground reality as are stated in the report of the village officer, and Exhibit P17 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
SD/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE jes W.P.(C)No.9019 of 2012 :: 8 ::
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.546 OF 2007 DATED 15.2.2007.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC NO.15894/2008 DATED 29.5.2008.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.9.2008.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE FORM E NOTICE DATED 17.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.10.2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.11.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.11.2008 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 22.7.2009.
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER 27.7.2009. EXT.P11:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29.7.2009 IN WPC NO.21303/2009.
EXT.12: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.7.2009 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 13.11.2009.
EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.3.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE FORM E NOTICE DATED 25.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.1.2011 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.7.2011.
// TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE