IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 4233 of 2010(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SAJI, S/O.VARGHESE, CHENGAMANATT HOUSE, MULAVUR P.O. PIN: 686 673. 2. ANIMOL, W/O.SAJI, CHENGAMANATT HOUSE, MULAVUR P.O. PIN: 686 673. BY ADV. MR.ASOK M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAVUR VILLAGE, PAINGOTTUR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED ADDL. R5: C.J. GEORGE, CHENAYAPPILLIL HOUSE, PAINGOTTOOR P.O. * ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/02/2010 IN I.A.2392/2010. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.A. ASIF. ADDL. R5 BY MR.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 4233/2010-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1153/2006 OF SRO, POTHANICADU EXECUTED ON 24/05/2006. EXT.P1(a): COPY OF THE RECEIT SHOWING REMITTANCE OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07/02/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT- REVENEUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DATED 07/02/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER. EXT.R5(b): COPY OF THE SITE MAP OF THE AREA. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 4233 of 2010-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P3 order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, whereby they are directed to remove the rubber trees cultivated in their paddy land. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Govt. Pleader and learned counsel appearing for additional 5th respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased the land as per Ext.P1 document, of the year 2006. There is no paddy cultivation in and around the place and there is no irrigation facility also. The nearby properties are cultivated with various other crops and the petitioner has mentioned that in some plots rubber cultivation is also there. For more than 10 years, paddy is not being cultivated by the petitioner, as the land is not suitable for the same, since there is no source of water to irrigate the land. According to the petitioner, the mere description of the property in the sale deed as Nilam, is not conclusive as defined in Clause (xii) of Section 2 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is in these circumstances, they decided to plant rubber trees in wpc /2010 2 the land. By Ext.P2, a stop memo was issued to the petitioners and later Ext.P3 order was communicated. It is submitted that before passing Ext.P3, no hearing was conducted and the petitioners were not given any opportunity to explain the location, nature and lie of the land and the inability to cultivate the land with paddy. 4. The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had cultivated paddy in the field even in 2006 and had collected paddy cultivation bonus for the said property in 2006. Ext.R5 (a) is produced in support of the above plea. It is further stated that the property is part of a large padasekharam and on the north and south of the property there are small thodus also. 5. Learned Govt. Pleader also supported the order passed as per Ext.P3. 6. The question is whether the plot in question could be allowed to be converted by cultivating rubber plants. The essential question is whether the property is remaining as paddy land and paddy cultivation is possible. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of definition of paddy land in the Act also, the petitioners are well within his rights to cultivate rubber plants. Ext.P3 shows that all these aspects have not been wpc /2010 3 considered in detail. The petitioners were also not heard in the matter obviously. It appears that a report was called for and on the basis of the said report, Ext.P3 order was passed. 7. Therefore, Ext.P3 will stand set aside. The Revenue Divisional Officer, viz. the second respondent herein, will hear all the parties including the additional 5th respondent,and then take a decision in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/