Kizhakkethil Itheerumma vs the Director

Kizhakkethil Itheerumma vs The Director

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 31, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1299052

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1299052
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.
Decided On: Jul 31, 2024
Case Number: WP(C)/28189/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kizhakkethil Itheerumma

Respondent

The Director

Excerpt

.....dated this the 31st day of july, 2024judgmentthe petitioner challenges ext.p2, an order passed in an application preferred by the petitioner in form 5 of the kerala conservation of paddy land and wetland act and rules, 2008 (for short, the act and the rules). a reading of ext.p2 shows that it is a non-speaking order without consideration of any relevant materials.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned government pleader.2. going by the provisions of the kerala conservation ofpaddy land and wetland act, 2008, “paddy land” is defined as all types of land situated in the state where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions -3-like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals. as per sec.5(4), the local level monitoring committee have the power to prepare the data bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland, within the area of jurisdiction of the committee, with the help of the map prepared or to be prepared by the state land use board or centre-state science and technology institutions on the basis of satellite pictures by incorporating the survey numbers and extent in the data-bankand get it notified by the concerned panchayat/municipality/corporation, in such manner. a reading of the above would show that what is to be included in a data bank are the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland. of course, taking note of the definition of paddy land as mentioned above, such an exercise to find out whether a property is a paddy land or whether it is cultivable or non-cultivable has to be ascertained taking into account the natural features of the land whether it is fit for cultivation or not. the most relevant aspect therefore is to find whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation.-4-3. there is no finding at all in the impugned order thatholds whether the land in.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 28189 OF 2022 PETITIONER: KIZHAKKETHIL ITHEERUMMA,AGED 70 YEARS W/O.MUTHUKOYA THANGAL, PATTIKALATHIL HOUSE, VADAKKANGARA, PONNIYAKRISHI, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 324. BY ADVS. P.SAMSUDIN MILAN RACHEL MATHEW LIRA A.B. RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, C BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, UP-HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505. 3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. 4 THE TAHSILDAR PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322. 5 PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322.
SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, SRI.VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
----------------------------------------------- WP(C)No.28189 of 2022 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2024

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P2, an order passed in an application preferred by the petitioner in Form 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 (for short, the Act and the Rules). A reading of Ext.P2 shows that it is a non-speaking order without consideration of any relevant materials.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

2. Going by the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of

Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, “paddy land” is defined as all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions -3-

like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals. As per Sec.5(4), the Local Level Monitoring Committee have the power to prepare the data bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland, within the area of jurisdiction of the Committee, with the help of the map prepared or to be prepared by the State Land Use Board or Centre-State Science and Technology Institutions on the basis of satellite pictures by incorporating the survey numbers and extent in the data-bank

and get it notified by the concerned Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation, in such manner. A reading of the above would show that what is to be included in a data bank are the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland. Of course, taking note of the definition of paddy land as mentioned above, such an exercise to find out whether a property is a paddy land or whether it is cultivable or non-cultivable has to be ascertained taking into account the natural features of the land whether it is fit for cultivation or not. The most relevant aspect therefore is to find whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation.

-4-

3. There is no finding at all in the impugned order that

holds whether the land in question is fit for paddy cultivation or not. In view of the above, I have no hesitation to quash Ext.P2 and direct the respondents to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner strictly in terms of the Act and the Rules, the KSREC report and in the light of the observations made above. The petitioner is directed to make available a copy of the KSREC report, which shall be produced before the third respondent. The third respondent shall reconsider the application afresh in the light of the KSREC report and also the report the Agricultural Officer within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the KSREC report, as directed above. Ext.P2 is quashed.

The Writ Petition is allowed as above. Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE dlk/31.7.2024 -5- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28189/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.4517/2013 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA.

EXHIBIT P2             TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   ORDER    DATED
EXHIBIT P3             TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY
                       THE   PETITIONER   BEFORE  THE   2ND
                       RESPONDENT     DISTRICT   COLLECTOR,

MALAPPURAM.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Kizhakkethil Itheerumma vs The Director Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.