Kerala High Court
Alice Joseph vs The State Of Kerala on 5 June, 2025
W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 1
2025:KER:39627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27381 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
ALICE JOSEPH,
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O JOSEPH, CHITTATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, VALAVOOR, P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686635
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
SHRI.T.N.ARJUN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL
STATION, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, VALLICHIRA, VALLICHIRA P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686574
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, VALAVOOR, VALAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686574
5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 2
2025:KER:39627
KAROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VALAVOOR,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686574
ADDL.R6 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.), COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-
686002 .
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE
WRIT PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED 5.6.2025 IN
I.A.NO.3 OF 2025 IN WP(C)NO.27381 OF 2022.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 3
2025:KER:39627
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
--------------------
W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022
--------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P8 order whereby the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The petitioner is in ownership of an extent of 33.60 Ares of properties comprised in Block No.19, Re-survey No.226/1 of Vallichira Village in Meenachil Taluk. Though the property was categorised as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register, but the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation at present. The coconut trees are planted in the property as early as in 1990 and the property has been fully transformed into a 'purayidom' at least from 2000 onwards. At present there are about 45 coconut trees in the subject land which are more than 20 years and 30 years old. There are other trees also standing in the property. The Local Level W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 4 2025:KER:39627 Monitoring Committee taking note of the ground realities recorded the status of the land in the draft data bank, which is produced as Ext.P2, that the property has been converted before 6 years and it is not suitable for paddy cultivation. As the property has already been converted, permission was sought by the petitioner under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 with effect from 30.12.2017. But in Ext.P3 final data bank the property is seen included. Thereupon, Ext.P4 application was submitted in Form- 5 for removal of the property from the data bank. A report was called for from the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer. It is submitted that the Agricultural Officer's report is not conclusive. In the said report, it is only stated that it can be presumed that the property was converted after 2008, since in the KSRSEC report in the data of 2008, it is reported as 'crop land' and from 2011 onwards, it is reported as plantation. The Village Officer has W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 5 2025:KER:39627 also submitted Ext.P7 report, wherein it is reported that the property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. Taking into consideration Ext.P4 report of the Agricultural Officer, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected as per Ext.P8. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P10, which is a list of approved persons who are entitled for subsidy for cutting and removing of coconut trees wherein petitioner's name is also included, which would reveal that there are 40 coconut trees in the said property and petitioner was found to be eligible for subsidy regarding cutting and removing of 5 coconut trees. On the basis of the same it is contended that the property is converted as a plantation and is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent contending that the Local Level Monitoring Committee after conducting a site inspection and after verifying the KSRSEC report, W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 6 2025:KER:39627 and in the light of the report of the Agricultural Officer and the LLMC, the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that the report or in the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer there is no finding to the effect that the property is suitable for paddy cultivation as on the coming into force of the Act on 12.8.2008 and the petitioner relies on the judgment of this in Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer 2023 (2) KLT 386 in support of his contentions. Petitioner also relies on the judgment in Line Properties Pvt.Ltd., v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam 2025 KHC OnLine 1637 and contend that in the draft data bank prepared itself after verification the nature of the property has been entered as converted 6 years before the coming into force of the Act and that it is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
5. I have considered the rival contentions on W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 7 2025:KER:39627 both sides.
6. A perusal of Ext.P8 would reveal that the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner essentially based on the report of the Agricultural Officer which was based on the KSRSEC report, but the Agricultural Officer has not conclusively stated that the property has been converted after 2008 and the report only says it is to be presumed that the property could have been converted after 2008. It is not seen that no site inspection was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
7. Yet another aspect to be noted is that while preparing the draft data bank Ext.P2, after conducting necessary enquiry and inspection the property was found to be converted 6 years prior to the coming into force of the Act and also found that the property is not fit for any paddy cultivation, and same is in the report of the Village Officer also. Though consideration of an application under W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 8 2025:KER:39627 Form-5 for excluding the paddy land from the data bank, report of the Village Officer is not very relevant but there is finding to that effect. I have already found that the report of the present Agricultural Officer is not conclusive regarding the conversion prior to 2008. As settled by this Court in a catena of decisions while consideration of an application under Form-5 for removal of the property from the data bank is the character and fitness of the land available as on 12.8.2008, that is the date of coming into force of the Act 2008, which is relevant for inclusion or exclusion of the land from the data bank. A perusal of the order does not reveal such a consideration by the RDO.
Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Revenue Divisional Officer/Additional 6th respondent. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is set aside directing the 2nd respondent/Additional 6th respondent to re-consider W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 9 2025:KER:39627 Ext.P4 application in Form-5. Petitioner will be free to submit a detailed argument note producing all the judgment in support of his contentions which shall also be duly considered in accordance with law by the officer concerned while taking a decision as directed above. Fresh decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE pm W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 10 2025:KER:39627 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27381/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.05.2022 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 02.02.2016 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK DATED 17.11.2020 I Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.11.2021 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 18.04.2022 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OBTAINED FROM THE KSRSEC DATED 27.12.2019 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 04.04.2022 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.05.2022 Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE EXISTENCE OF AGED COCONUT TREES IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF BENEFICIARIES DURING THE YEAR 205-16 PREPARED BY COCONUT DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN,KAROOR DATED 24.04.2024