IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18115 of 2006(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- YESUDAS, S/O. DEVASSY, EDAKKALATHOOR HOUSE, MULLASSERRY AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. T.P. VINODAN, THIKKADIYATH VEEDU, MULLASSERRY P.O.,THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.NOBLE MATHEW, GOVT. PLEADER R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN, SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI, SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR & SMT.K.M.RAMYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 18115 of 2006(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.03.1998. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE AGRL.DEPARTMENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.05.1998. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.1998. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.09.2000. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 25.10.2000. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2002. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 4950 OF 2002. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 18.02.2002. EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER. EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.03.2003. EXT.P14 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.01.2003. EXT.P15 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2003. EXT.P16 : COPY OF THE BASIC TAX EXTRACT FILED ALONG WITH THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P17 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P18 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P19 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P20 : COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. DG --2-- --2-- WP(C).No. 18115 of 2006(F) RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) : COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.692/92 DATED 23.03.92. EXT.R4(b) : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PADDY CULTIVATION SUBSIDY DURING THE YEAR 1992. EXT.R4(c) : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION INCENTIVE DURING THE YEAR 1995. EXT.R4(d) : COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 04.04.09. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE DG S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18115 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of certain properties in Annakkara Village in Chavakkad Taluk of Thrissur District. Alleging that the property was originally a paddy field and the petitioner had unauthorisedly converted by the petitioner as dry land, the 4th respondent filed complaints against the petitioner before respondents 1 and 2. According to the petitioner, even when the petitioner purchased the property it was a full fledged dry land having plenty of fruit bearing coconut trees thereon. Despite the petitioner's objections, the authorities under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order directed the petitioner to remove the coconut saplings and to restore the property as paddy land. The petitioner's appeal etc being not fruitful, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: (i) To declare that the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of india. in the alternative (ii) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P20 and W.P.(C)No.18115/06 2 issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same; (iii) to direct the registrar, High Court of Kerala to initiate proceedings against the 4th respondent under section 340 Cr. P.C. for producing a false document and falsely swearing to the affidavit, knowing fully well it is false and using it before this Hon'ble court in the earlier proceedings. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting the stand of respondents 1 to 3. The 4th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit supporting the stand of respondents 1 to 3. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The petitioner does not seriously press the challenge against the constitutional validity of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order now. Therefore, I am not going into that question in this writ petition. Of course, in view of the drastic reduction in food production in Kerala State, it is necessary to take some serious steps to prevent stoppage of cultivation of paddy and like crops in Kerala. But, the steps taken in that regard should ultimately result in production of such crops either by the Government themselves or by the owners of the properties. Therefore, unless respondent 1 to 3 are satisfied that the property is fit for paddy cultivation, there is no point in enforcing the Kerala Land Utilisation Order against a particular W.P.(C)No.18115/06 3 property. Therefore, unless the property is reasonably capable of being converted into a paddy land, there is no purpose in directing the petitioner to remove the coconut cultivation in his property and directing him to cultivate paddy in that land. For example, if the entire property within the vicinity of the petitioner's property are garden land and no proceedings are taken against those properties under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to make the same also cultivable, there is absolutely no point in taking proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order against the petitioner's property. Therefore, I am of opinion that the property should be inspected by the Agricultural Officer competent to decide the question as to whether this property is capable of being converted into a paddy land profitably by a reasonable inexpensive method. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P20 order is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to get the property of the petitioner examined by the Principal Agricultural Officer, Thrissur and obtain a report as to the feasibility of the petitioner's property being converted into a paddy land for effective cultivation of paddy as mentioned above. If the Agricultural Officer certifies W.P.(C)No.18115/06 4 that the property is capable of being converted into a paddy land for effective paddy cultivation, it would be open to respondents 1 to 3 to take fresh steps in respect thereof. But, if the Principal Agricultural Officer certifies that the property is not capable of being converted into a paddy land for effective paddy cultivation, further proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order shall be dropped. The inspection by the Principal Agricultural Officer shall be with notice to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.18115/06 5 W.P.(C)No.18115/06 6