Kannan a, Vs District Collector

¶1

2025:KER:20335

¶2

WP(C) No.28066 of 2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶7

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 28066 OF 2024

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

KANNAN A,
AGED 49 YEARS

¶10

S/O. APPACHI KOUNDER, A K K NIVAS HOUSE, NAIRTHARA,
VADAKKENCHERRY P.O,VADAKKENCHERY I VILLAGE, ALATHUR
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678683

¶11

BY ADVS.
PRABHU K.N.
MANEESH.R

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ,

¶14

PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

¶15

2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

¶16

3 TAHSILDAR , ALATHUR TALUK , PALAKKAD, PIN - 678541

¶17

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKENCHERRY- II VILLAGE ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683

¶18

5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683

¶19

6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE , ( CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT 2008) REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678683

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) No.28066 of 2024

¶22

¶23

2025:KER:20335

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The petitioner is the owner in possession of the property having an extent of 0.0121 hectares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.248/13 of Block No.46 of Vadakkencherry-II Village in Alathur Taluk of Palakkad District. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the fact that the property of the petitioner was lying as dry land, even prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (herein after referred to as ‘Paddy Land Act’), the same was included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act by describing it as 'Paddy Land'. In such circumstances, for removing the said entry from the Data Bank, Ext.P3 application in Form-5 was submitted by the petitioner. However, the same was rejected as per Ext.P7 order passed by the 2nd respondent. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P7.

¶26

2.I have heard Sri. Prabhu K.N,, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Smt. Deepa V, the learned Government Pleader.

¶27

3. The main challenge raised in Ext.P7 is that, the same

¶28

¶29

2025:KER:20335

¶30

WP(C) No.28066 of 2024

¶31

was passed, by simply accepting the report of the Agriculture Of fi cer and without conducting a proper and independent inquiry by the 2nd respondent on his own. Besides, it was found that the property is fallow land as per KSRSEC Report. According to respondents, going by the def i nition of Paddy Land under Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act, fallow land also has to be treated as paddy land.

¶32

4. After carefully going through the contents of Ext.P7 and also the other materials placed on record, I f i nd that, Ext.P7 cannot be treated as a proper order passed in compliance with the stipulations under the Paddy Land Act.

¶33

5. First of all, it is to be noted that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P7 does not contain an independent assessment of the 2nd respondent and instead, the report of the Agriculture Of fi cer as such, has been accepted. As far as the report of the Agriculture Of fi cer is concerned, the same can only be treated as one of the materials for deciding the issue i.e., the nature of the property, which is the subject matter of the case. In other words, the enquiry contemplated for considering the application in Form-5 is not conf i ned to the acceptance of the report of the Agricultural Of fi cer and the

¶34

2025:KER:20335

¶35

WP(C) No.28066 of 2024

¶36

¶37

other materials shall also to be taken into account.

¶38

6. Apart from the above, from Ext.P7 order, it is discernible that even as per the report of the Agricultural of fi ce, the property is described as a fallow land. For arriving at the said conclusion, the contents of Ext.P5 KSRSEC Report was also relied on. However, the conclusion of the 2nd respondent is to the ef f ect that, since the property is fallow land, the same would come within the def i nition of Paddy land Act as per Sec.212 of the Act. The said f i nding is not correct and is against the def i nition of Paddy land Act as contemplated under Sec.212.

¶39

7. As per the said def i nition, the property must be that the one,where paddy cultivation at least once in a year or it is suitable for Paddy cultivation but un-cultivated and left fallow. Therefore, it is evident that merely because the property was described as ‘fallow land’, it cannot be treated as paddy land unless the same has the characteristics and features as referred to in Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act. This would mean that, either there must be cultivation of paddy once in a year or it must be suitable for paddy cultivation.

¶40

2025:KER:20335

¶41

¶42

WP(C) No.28066 of 2024

¶43

8. Here in this case, apart from the f i nding that it is a ‘fallow land’, no attempt has been made to f i nd out whether any paddy cultivation being conducted once in a year or whether was it suitable for paddy cultivation. Therefore Ext.P7 order passed by the 2nd respondent is on a misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘Paddy land’ as def i ned under Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act. Therefore, reconsideration is absolutely necessary.

¶44

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P7 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner, taking note of the observations made by this Court in this judgment and conducting an independent enquiry by, collecting all the inputs, by f i nding out whether the property was suitable for paddy cultivation as on the date enactment of the Paddy Land Act. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶47

SM/22.03

¶48

2025:KER:20335

¶49

WP(C) No.28066 of 2024

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28066/2024

¶52

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶53

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO. 3612 OF 2019` `OF SRO ALATHUR DATED 21.11.2019`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA` `BANK`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION` `NO.2/2024/1884413 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/01/2024`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.4213 OF` `2024 DATED 02.02.2024`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT OF RE. SURVEY` `NO.248/3 ( PARENT RE. SURVEY NO OF RE. SURVEY` `NO.248/13) OF BLOCK 46 OF VADAKKENCHERRY II` `VILLAGE, ALATHUR THALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRUICT` `DATED 10.02.2020`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT` `IN EXHIBIT P3 DATED 04.04.2024`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION` `DATED 28-06-2024`

¶54

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶55

TRUE COPY

¶56

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kannan a, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannan a, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maneesh T.K., Vs Tholur Grama Panchayath

Karoorkkadavu Muslim Jama-Ath, Rep. by It’S President, Jalaludheen Kunju, Vs the District Collector

Dr. Anoop Kumar, Vs the District Collector

K.G Mathew, Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

Manju G, W/O Santhosh, Vs District Collector

Sunny Mathew Vs the Palakkad Municipality