Kerala High Court
N.V.Raju vs State Of Kerala on 1 August, 2025
W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2022 1
2025:KER:57279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6260 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
N.V.RAJU, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.VARKEY, NJATTUTHOTTIYIL HOUSE,
KOLENCHERY P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 311
BY ADVS. SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
SHRI.ALEXANDER K.C.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
ALAPUZHA, ALAPUZHA-688 013
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE,
MANNANCHERRY,ALAPUZHA-688 538
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
MANNANCHERRY, REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MANNANCHERY, ALAPUZHA-688 538
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
MANNANCHERRY, ALAPUZHA-688 538
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2022 2
2025:KER:57279
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2022
.................................................................
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 order whereby the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the 2nd respondent solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer.
2. Petitioner is in ownership of different extent of properties comprised in various survey numbers in block No.4 of Mannancherry Village in Ambalappuzha Taluk and bounded by National Highway on the west and PWD road on the north. Petitioner contends that Ext.P1 order was issued without following the procedures prescribed under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [2017 (1) KHC 394] has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala [2020 (5) KHC W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2022 3 2025:KER:57279 490] has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector [2021 (1) KLT 433] it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222] has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. 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 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 W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2022 4 2025:KER:57279 area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. Further, this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (5) KLT 432] has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.
5. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that the said decision has been taken based on the report of the Agricultural Officer only. Further two reasons stated in the report of the Agricultural Officer not to recommend the case of the petitioner are that the property is lying low and there is water logging in the property, which are not reasons available for the authority for rejecting the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner going by the judgments in Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, 2021 (6) KHC 316 and Mather Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others, 2020 (2) KHC 94. Petitioner further submits that though a KSRSEC report was called for and received, the observations therein were not considered at the time of passing Ext.P1 order.
A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that Ext.P3 KSRSEC report has not been properly considered and further no site inspection is seen to have been conducted by the 2nd respondent. In view of the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P1 order is set aside with a consequential W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2022 5 2025:KER:57279 direction to the 2nd respondent/competent officer to reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner after duly considering Ext.P3 KSRSEC report and after conducting a site inspection. A decision as directed above shall be taken within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner will be free to file argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him to substantiate his contentions and the 2nd respondent RDO/competent officer while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the findings of this Court in the judgments cited (supra) and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by him.
With the abovesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of.
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE cks W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2022 6 2025:KER:57279 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6260/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.11.2021 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE LLMC DATED 20.10.2021 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSRSEC DATED 09.12.2020