Remanded

Khadheeja Kareem v. the District Collector Kozhikode

Kerala HC18 Aug 2023WP(C)/151/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging a Sub Collector's rejection of an application to remove land from the Paddy Land and Wetland Data Bank. The court found the rejection insufficient without scientific data and set aside the order, directing officials to obtain a KSREC report and reconsider the application.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order set aside; direction to obtain KSREC report within 2 weeks and pass appropriate orders on Form-5 application within 2 months.

Khadheeja Kareem Vs the District Collector Kozhikode — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 151 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KHADHEEJA KAREEM AGED 56 YEARS W/O ABDUL KAREEM, MATHILAKATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, MAVOOR VILLAGE, MAVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673008

¶8

BY ADVS. P.SAMSUDIN MILAN RACHEL MATHEW LIRA A.B.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673020

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673020

¶12

3 PERUVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERUVAYAL P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673008

¶13

4 THE CONVENER LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, PERUVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673008

¶14

BY ADVS. VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN T.M.KHALID(K/000047/2013) K.P.SUSMITHA(K/956/2001) SMT.DEVISREE R. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.151 of 2023

: 2 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.151 of 2023

¶21

Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2023

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶24

The petitioner, who is owner of 1.465 Ares of property in Kuttikattoor Village, is challenging Ext.P3 order of the Sub Collector, Kozhikode, whereby the petitioner’s request to remove the petitioner’s land from Data Bank stands rejected.

¶25

The petitioner is owner of 1.465 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey No.22/2A of Kuttikattoor Village, Kozhikode Taluk of Kozhikode District. According to the petitioner, the land stood converted prior to the year 2008 when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was enacted. The land is presently in the nature of

¶26

'Purayidom'.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.151 of 2023

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

However, when a Data Bank of Paddy Land and Wetland was constituted under Section 5(4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the petitioner’s land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Form-5 application, invoking Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

¶30

The petitioner’s Form-5 application has been rejected by the Sub Collector as per Ext.P3 order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order. According to the petitioner, the Sub Collector has rejected the petitioner’s application solely based on a report dated 24.11.2021 of the Village Officer. The petitioner submits that it is evident from the order that the Sub Collector has neither made a Site inspection nor he has applied his mind while passing the impugned order.

¶31

The property of the petitioner lies in the nature of 'Purayidom'. Had the Sub Collector harboured any doubt in

¶32

W.P.(C) No.151 of 2023

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

this regard, he should have ordered to obtain scientific data as provided under Rule 4(4F) of the Rules, 2008 to ascertain the nature of the land as it stood in the year 2008, contended the petitioner. If the order of the Sub Collector is allowed to stand, it will interfere with the constitutional right of the petitioner to freely enjoy the land, which in turn will be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, urged the petitioner.

¶35

Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. When the petitioner submitted Form-5 application to remove land from Data Bank, the Sub Collector sought a report from the Village Officer.

¶36

The Village Officer submitted a Report dated 24.11.2021. The said Report was made on the basis of a Site inspection. The report specifically recommended that the land is not to be removed from the Data Bank as it would defeat the very purpose of the Act, 2008. The petitioner has

¶37

W.P.(C) No.151 of 2023

¶38

: 5 :

¶39

not advanced any legal reason to unsettle the decision taken by the Sub Collector, the Government Pleader insisted.

¶40

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶41

the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶42

The petitioner is owner of 1.465 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey No.22/2A of Kuttikattoor Village, Kozhikode Taluk of Kozhikode District. The petitioner’s land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Form-5 application.

¶43

I have perused Ext.P3 order passed by the Sub Collector on 06.12.2022. The Sub Collector has passed the said order based on a report dated 24.11.2021 of the Village Officer, Kuttikkattoor. The Village Officer has reported that there is only one coconut tree aged more than 20 years, in the land. There are no other trees. The adjacent lands are wetlands. Converting the petitioner's land would result in waterlogging. It has been further reported by the Village

¶44

W.P.(C) No.151 of 2023

¶45

: 6 :

¶46

Officer that the petitioner's land remains as a paddy land till date.

¶47

Accepting the report of the Village Officer and based on the findings of the Village Officer, the Sub Collector has rejected the petitioner's application in Form-5. I find that the Village Officer's report does not specifically states whether the petitioner's land is a wetland or paddy land. The Village Officer has held that the other lands near the property of the petitioner are in the nature of wetland. At the same time, the Village Officer would state that the petitioner's land remains as a paddy land till date.

¶48

Ext.P2 photographs produced by the petitioner would show that the nearby areas are all well developed by roads, plantations and buildings. In such circumstances, if the Sub Collector had any doubt regarding the nature of the petitioner's land as it stood in the year 2008, the Sub Collector should have obtained scientific data to come to a correct conclusion.

¶49

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ

¶50

W.P.(C) No.151 of 2023

¶51

: 7 :

¶52

petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P3 and directing that if the petitioner makes an application to the Village Officer concerned for obtaining KSREC report within a period of two weeks after paying the prescribed fee, then the 2^nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Kozhikode shall reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of KSREC report.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶55

aks/12.09.2023

¶56

W.P.(C) No.151 of 2023

¶57

: 8 :

¶58

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 151/2023

¶59

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶60

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 15-12-2022. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER C-7/3412/2021/ DATED 06-12-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶61

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶62

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER

Khadheeja Kareem v. the District Collector Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khadheeja Kareem v. the District Collector Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Ramadas Vs the Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board

M.Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Madanan Menon Vs the State of Kerala

Ragna Ranjith Vs the District Collector Kozhikode

Radhakrishan.S.K Vs Senior Geologist

Mathew T Thomas Vs P. Vishnu Raj