BY AD vs PRABHU K.N.

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

3. The main challenge raised in Ext.P7 is that, the same WP(C) No.28066 of 2024 3 was passed, by simply accepting the report of the Agriculture Officer 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 definition of Paddy Land under Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act, fallow land also has to be treated as paddy land.

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

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 Officer as such, has been accepted. As far as the report of the Agriculture Officer 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 confined to the acceptance of the report of the Agricultural Officer and the WP(C) No.28066 of 2024 4 other materials shall also to be taken into account.

6. Apart from the above, from Ext.P7 order, it is discernible that even as per the report of the Agricultural office, 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 effect that,  since the property is fallow land, the same would come within the definition of Paddy land Act as per Sec.212 of the Act. The said finding is not correct and is against the definition of Paddy land Act as contemplated under Sec.212.

7. As per the said definition, 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. WP(C) No.28066 of 2024 5

8. Here in this case, apart from the finding that it is a ‘fallow land’, no attempt has been made to find 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 defined under Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act. Therefore, reconsideration is absolutely necessary. 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 finding 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. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE SM/22.03 WP(C) No.28066 of 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28066/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO. 3612 OF 2019 OF SRO ALATHUR DATED 21.11.2019 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION NO.2/2024/1884413 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/01/2024 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.4213 OF 2024 DATED 02.02.2024 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 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P3 DATED 04.04.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION DATED 28-06-2024 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE

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

3. The main challenge raised in Ext.P7 is that, the same WP(C) No.28066 of 2024 3 was passed, by simply accepting the report of the Agriculture Officer 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 definition of Paddy Land under Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act, fallow land also has to be treated as paddy land.

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

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 Officer as such, has been accepted. As far as the report of the Agriculture Officer 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 confined to the acceptance of the report of the Agricultural Officer and the WP(C) No.28066 of 2024 4 other materials shall also to be taken into account.

6. Apart from the above, from Ext.P7 order, it is discernible that even as per the report of the Agricultural office, 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 effect that,  since the property is fallow land, the same would come within the definition of Paddy land Act as per Sec.212 of the Act. The said finding is not correct and is against the definition of Paddy land Act as contemplated under Sec.212.

7. As per the said definition, 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. WP(C) No.28066 of 2024 5

8. Here in this case, apart from the finding that it is a ‘fallow land’, no attempt has been made to find 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 defined under Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act. Therefore, reconsideration is absolutely necessary. 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 finding 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. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE SM/22.03 WP(C) No.28066 of 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28066/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO. 3612 OF 2019 OF SRO ALATHUR DATED 21.11.2019 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION NO.2/2024/1884413 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/01/2024 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.4213 OF 2024 DATED 02.02.2024 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 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P3 DATED 04.04.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION DATED 28-06-2024 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE