2025:KER:27438 1 WP(C) No.9347 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 9347 OF 2018 PETITIONERS: 1 SRI.MATHAI(ALSO KNOWN AS BABY) AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSY, CHETIYAMKUDY HOUSE, AIMURY, KOVAPPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 2 SMT.MOLY AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. MATHAI, CHETIYAMKUDY HOUSE, AIMURY, KOVAPPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE SRI.TONY THOMAS INCHIPARAMBIL RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - PIN 695 001. 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD - 682 030. 3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MINI CIVIL STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 669. 4 VILLAGE OFFICER, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 544. 2025:KER:27438 2 WP(C) No.9347 of 2018 5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KOOVAPADY, ERNAKULAM - 683 544. 6 SMT.KUMARI CHANDRAN MADAVANA HOUSE, AIMURY P.O, KAVUMPURAM, KOOVAPADY, PERUMBAVOOR PIN 683 544. BY ADV SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI.BINOY DAVIS, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27438 3 WP(C) No.9347 of 2018 JUDGMENT Dated this the 27 th day of March, 2025 The writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P1, P2 and P5 orders. Ext.P1 is the original order of the District Collector under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short ‘the Act, 2008’). Ext.P2 is the revisional order passed by the Government, whereby they uphold the order of the District Collector. Ext.P5 is a consequential order issued by the Village Officer to cut down the rubber and other cultivations in the property of the petitioners. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of 55 cents of property which is wrongly included as ”nilam” in the revenue records and the Data Bank prepared under the Act, 2008. It is the case of the petitioners that the property is an agricultural land planted with rubber trees and subjected to regular tapping. In the year 2011 the District Collector, as per Ext.P1 order under Section 13 of the Act, directed the petitioners to cut down the rubber trees, as land 2025:KER:27438 4 WP(C) No.9347 of 2018 is shown as ‘Nilam’ in the draft data bank. The petitioners’ challenge against the same before the Government was ended up in upholding the decision of the District Collector. Under such circumstances, the petitioner approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) by preferring Ext.P3 application. 3. Thereafter by Ext.P5 order, they were directed by the Village Officer to cut and remove the cultivations in the properties comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.209/2, 209/3, 209/12 and 209/1-2 having extents of 04.69, 6.50, 5.86 and 5.67 Ares in Kovappady Village respectively. 4. In the meanwhile, the petitioners preferred applications before the LLMC for removing the property from the draft Data Bank as the rubber trees were planted in the year 2006. Since the application preferred before the LLMC was not considered properly, the petitioners had also preferred Ext.P6 application again before the LLMC in the prescribed form available on the date of that application. The application is pending before the LLMC. Under such 2025:KER:27438 5 WP(C) No.9347 of 2018 circumstances, seeking for a direction to consider Ext.P6 and setting aside Exts.P1, P2 and P5, the petitioners approached this Court with this writ petition. 5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 order was issued on the background that the petitioners are attempting to reclaim the land by planting rubber trees. After getting report from the Agricultural Officer, the District Collector has passed Ext.P1 order. Against that the petitioners had preferred a revision. After the detailed consideration of the facts involved in the issue, the Government upheld the order passed by the District Collector as per Ext.P2. Ext.P5 is a consequential order issued by the Village Officer. It is further contended that the applications preferred by the petitioners are not in format and that cannot be considered. 6. Against the same, the petitioners contended that the proceedings under Section 13 cannot be sustained as the same is against reclamation of land. Petitioners have not reclaimed any land for the purpose of cultivation. They assert 2025:KER:27438 6 WP(C) No.9347 of 2018 that they had only changed the tenure of the land by effecting certain measures. The property does not have the nature of paddy land on the date of implementation of the Act, 2008. 7. Having considered the contentions raised across the Bar and going by the facts involved in this case, it appears that this is a fact to be ascertained after obtaining a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC). Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority and to request for the removal of the property from the Data Bank, if it is established that, on the date of implementation of the Act, 2008, the property was neither paddy land nor cultivable as defined under the Act, 2008. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. 9. The petitioners shall prefer an application in proper format before the authorized officer under Section 2(xvA), for removing the property from the data bank. In the 2025:KER:27438 7 WP(C) No.9347 of 2018 event of receiving application from the petitioners, the authorized officer shall, after obtaining sufficient inputs required under the Act, 2008, (i.e., report from the Agricultural Officer about the nature of land on the date of implementation of the Act, after considering the satellite image report from the KSRSEC for the purpose) consider the issue regarding the nature of the property on the date of implementation of the Act, 2008 and take appropriate decision. Needless to say, the petitioners shall remit the requisite fee prescribed under the Act, for the purpose of getting reports from the KSRSEC through the Agricultural Officer. The entire exercise shall be completed by the authority, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. sd/- P.M.MANOJ JUDGE das 2025:KER:27438 8 WP(C) No.9347 of 2018 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9347/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18 OCTOBER 2011 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM IN FILE NO: L5-55513/11. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3/6/2013 IN FILE NO 959/2013 BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KOOVAPPADY. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 14/7/2015 ISSUED BY THE CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICER) OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KOOVAPPADY. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15/3/2018 IN FILE NO.67/18 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOOVAPPADY. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KOOVAPPADY EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER KOOVAPPADY DATED 23-03-2018