SHIYAS.S v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- MOHAMMED NIAS C P
Outcome
Allowed
The writ petition is allowed as above
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. There is no finding at all in the impugned order that holds whether the land in question is fit for paddy cultivation or not. Given the above, I have no hesitation to quash Ext.P4 and direct the fourth respondent, the Sub Collector to re-consider…
Judgment
THE TAHSILDAR (LR), ALATHUR TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678541 BY SMT. PREETHA K.K., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 37975 OF 2023 2 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P4, an order passed in a Form 5 application filed by him under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 (for short, the Act and the Rules). A reading of Ext. P4 shows that the same is a non-speaking order without consideration of any of the relevant aspects.
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 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 WP(C) NO. 37975 OF 2023 3 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.
Operative part
There is no finding at all in the impugned order that holds whether the land in question is fit for paddy cultivation or not. Given the above, I have no hesitation to quash Ext.P4 and direct the fourth respondent, the Sub Collector to re-consider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner strictly in terms of the Act and the Rules and in the light of the KSREC report which shall be made available by the petitioner. This shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of the KSREC report made available by the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as above. DCS SD/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE WP(C) NO. 37975 OF 2023 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37975/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1996/2022 DATED 06/08/2022 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 21/2/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE, NO. T.A. (7)1531/18 DATED 01/07/2019 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT, NO. 4392/2023 DATED 08/10/2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE I
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is allowed as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act; Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.