Kerala High Court
Rajesh P. R vs The Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional ... on 11 March, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 8667 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
RAJESH P. R, AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. RAJAN P K, PULINILKKUMTHARAYAIL HOUSE,
MUTTITHADI, BHARATHA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680317
BY ADVS.
K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
P.K.MINIMOLE
A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
BAPPU GALIB SALAM
MUHAMMED ASHIQUE
G.MOTILAL
RESPONDENTS:
*1 THE SUB-COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
(* THE ADDRESS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS
PER I.A.NO.1/24 AS PER ORDER DATED 11.03.2024 AS
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA,
1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION RD, ANNEXE,
IRINJALAKUDA, KERALA 680125 )
2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REP. BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
ALAGAPPANAGAR KRISHI BHAVAN ALAGAPPA NAGAR,
VATTANATHRA, KERALA, PIN - 680302
R BY SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 8667 OF 2024 : 2 :
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 13.82 Ares of land in Sy.No.64/2-4 of Aamballur Village, Mukandapuram Taluk, Thrissur District.
3. According to the petitioner, the said property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008' for short). However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank WP(C) NO. 8667 OF 2024 : 3 : prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2008' for short). The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P2 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Rules, 2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P3 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the LLMC has inspected the subject land on the three sides of the property and there are paddy lands and there are no buildings and the land need not be removed from the Data Bank.
4. The petitioner impugns Ext.P3 contending, inter alia, that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act, 2008 WP(C) NO. 8667 OF 2024 : 4 : and the binding precedents of this Court.
5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wet land is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. Rule 4(4E) of the Rules, 2008 provides that, on receipt of the application in Form 5, the RDO shall call for a report from the Agricultural Officer in the case of paddy land and that of the Village Officer in the case of wetland. Rule 4(4F) provides that, on receipt of the report as above, the RDO shall, if deems necessary, verify the contents of the Data Bank by direct inspection or with the help of satellite images prepared by Central/State Scientific Technological institutions and pass appropriate orders on the application. On a perusal of Ext.P3, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of WP(C) NO. 8667 OF 2024 : 5 : the nature of property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied upon the report of the Agricultural Officer to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank.
6. This Court has held in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] that, the Revenue Divisional Officer must, while considering an application for removal of a property from the data bank consider the question whether the land was a paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270] has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from the Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the WP(C) NO. 8667 OF 2024 : 6 : Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to remove the land from Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer being the competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the land and come to a conclusion that removal of the land from Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question or in the nearby paddy lands or that it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable.
7. Further, this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83] has held that the predominant factor for determination while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from WP(C) NO. 8667 OF 2024 : 7 : Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.
8. 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 Bank. None of the parameters for consideration of a Form 5 application has been taken into account while passing the impugned order. I find that there is total non application of mind on the part of the RDO in issuing Ext.P3. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P3, with a direction to the 1st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P2 application in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision after considering the KSRSEC report to be obtained WP(C) NO. 8667 OF 2024 : 8 : at the expense of the petitioner and other relevant factors mentioned in Rule 4(4F), 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 this writ petition along with the copy of the judgment before the RDO.
The writ petition is disposed of .
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB WP(C) NO. 8667 OF 2024 : 9 : APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 02.08.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 07.09.2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 51/2024 DATED 22.01.2024