SEBI P.L v. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

Further, it is trite law that, merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot by itself be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act,

2008. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has held that existence of neerchals in a property should never be a prime consideration in deciding whether the land is to be retained in the Data Bank. Instead, the prime consideration should be whether paddy cultivation is possible in the property in question.

8. In Mather Nagar Residents Association WP(C).No.13838 OF 2023 6 and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others (2020 (2) KLT 192), a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSRSEC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSRSEC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008.”

9. In Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others [2014 (1) KHC 685], this Court has held that if the land suitable for paddy cultivation is uncultivated and left fallow and if the said land is included as paddy land in the village records and if the property WP(C).No.13838 OF 2023 7 is locked on all four sides with lands which were reclaimed before the coming into force of the Act, 2008, such land cannot be said as suitable for cultivation and may come outside the definition of paddy land.

10. In Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (2) KLT 386], this Court held as follows:- “Going by the definition in S.2(xii) of “paddy land” in the Act, 2008, to bring in a land within the definition of paddy land, it should be suitable for paddy cultivation, but uncultivated and left fallow. Just for the reason that the property is left fallow, the land cannot be brought within the definition of paddy land but the Revenue Divisional Officer should be satisfied that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation and left fallow and therefore only on satisfaction of the said twin conditions that a land could be treated as paddy land coming under the definition of S.2(xii) of the Act, 2008.”

11. In spite of the categorical declarations by this Court in the decisions cited above, the petitioner's application has been rejected, solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who recommended not to remove the land from the Data WP(C).No.13838 OF 2023 8 Bank. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P14 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application of the petitioner in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after obtaining KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report of the KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply before the Agricultural Officer concerned for KSRSEC report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 1st respondent. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. SPR Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE WP(C).No.13838 OF 2023 9 APPENDIX PETITIONER’ S EXHIBITS :- EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P12 EXHIBIT P13 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1031/2021 DATED 09.04.2021 OF S.R.O VADAKKANCHERY. TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 01.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.D.DIS.M-2790/04 DATED 08.07.2004. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2020 IN W.P.(C)NO.27187 OF 2018. TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.A3- 4439/20 DATED 14.12.2020 OF THE SECRETARY OF KANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF KANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 01.03.2021. TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.03.2021. TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE VIDE DATED NO.5088501/2659/2021 31.12.2021. TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 31.12.2021 (FOR THE YEAR 21-22) ISSUED BY THE KANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.02.2023 (FOR THE YEAR 22-23) ISSUED BY THE KANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE ORDER NO.1897/2023 DATED 12.03.2023 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REFUSING TO EXCLUDE THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATA BANK. WP(C).No.13838 OF 2023 10 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 02-05-2023 OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,2005. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.