Kerala High Court
Anitha Kumari K vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 7 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12159 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
ANITHA KUMARI K.,
AGED 44 YEARS,
W/O. MUKUNDAN UNNI,
SURYA PRABHA, ASWATHY NAGAR,
ATHANIPARAMBU, OLAVAKKOD (PO),
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678002
BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
VYDYUTH NAGAR, PARAKKUNNAM,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678101
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PUDUPARIYARAM (PO),
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678733
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PUDUPARIYARAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
PUDUPARIYARAM (PO),
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678733
BY SMT.RESHMI K.M.,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.12159/2023
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2023
The petitioner, who is owner of 0.0248 Hectare of
property in Pudupariyaram-2 Village, is challenging Ext.P4
order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad, whereby
the petitioner's request to remove the petitioner's land from
Data Bank stands rejected.
2. The petitioner is owner of 0.0248 Hectare of
property comprised in Re-Survey No.471/13 of Block No.22
of Pudupariyaram-2 Village, Palakkad Taluk of Palakkad
District. According to the petitioner, the land stood converted
prior to the year 2008 when the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was enacted. The land
is presently in the nature of 'purayidom'.
3. However, when a Data Bank of Paddy Land and
Wetland was constituted under Section 5(4)(i) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the
petitioner's land was included in the Data Bank. The
petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes.
W.P.(C) No.12159/2023
Therefore, the petitioner submitted Form-5 application,
invoking Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
4. The petitioner's Form-5 application has been
rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P4
order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order. According to
the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected
the petitioner's application solely based on a report dated
29.10.2021 of the Agricultural Officer. The petitioner submits
that it is evident from the order that the Revenue Divisional
Officer has neither made a Site inspection nor he has applied
his mind while passing the impugned order.
5. The property of the petitioner lies in the nature of
'purayidom'. Had the Revenue Divisional Officer harboured
any doubt in this regard, he should have ordered to obtain
scientific data as provided under Rule 4(4F) of the Rules,
2008 to ascertain the nature of the land as it stood in the
year 2008, contended the petitioner. If the order of the
Revenue Divisional Officer is allowed to stand, it will interfere
W.P.(C) No.12159/2023
with the constitutional right of the petitioner to freely enjoy the
land, which in turn will be violative of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, urged the petitioner.
6. Government Pleader entered appearance and
resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all
the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition.
When the petitioner submitted Form-5 application to remove
land from Data Bank, the Revenue Divisional Officer sought
a report from the Agricultural Officer, who is the Convenor of
the Local Level Monitoring Committee.
7. Based on the findings of the Local Level
Monitoring Committee, the Agricultural Officer submitted a
Report dated 29.10.2021. The said Report was made on the
basis of a Site inspection. The report specifically
recommended that the land is not to be removed from the
Data Bank as it would defeat the very purpose of the Act,
2008. The petitioner has not advanced any legal reason to
unsettle the decision taken by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, the Government Pleader insisted.
W.P.(C) No.12159/2023
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader representing the
respondents.
9. The petitioner is owner of 0.0248 Hectare of
property comprised in Re-Survey No.471/13 of Block No.22
of Pudupariyaram-2 Village, Palakkad Taluk of Palakkad
District. The petitioner's land was included in the Data Bank.
The petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes.
Therefore, the petitioner submitted Form-5 application.
10. I have perused Ext.P4 order passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer
has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner
based on a report dated 29.10.2021 of the Agricultural
Officer, Pudupariyaram. The Agricultural Officer has held
that the land of the petitioner is suitable for paddy cultivation
and it need not be excluded from the Data Bank. It is based
on the said observation of the Agricultural Officer that the
Revenue Divisional Officer has declined the request of the
petitioner to remove the land from Data Bank.
W.P.(C) No.12159/2023
11. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the
District Collector. The District Collector informed the
petitioner that no appeal is maintainable against the order of
the Revenue Divisional Officer and that the petitioner will
have to obtain a KSREC report and approach the Revenue
Divisional Officer afresh. Accordingly, the petitioner obtained
Ext.P8 KSREC report and has filed Ext.P9 Form-5
application. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer has
taken a stand that a repeated Form-5 application cannot be
entertained.
12. Be that as it may, I have perused Ext.P8 KSREC
report. In Ext.P8 KSREC report, the Director, KSREC has
found that though in the toposheet of the year 1967 the plot
of the petitioner was observed as paddy land, by the year
2006, the plot was found bordered by a road in the north side
and under vegetation cover on other areas. The same land
use pattern continued in the data of subsequent years. The
said observations would indicate that there is a strong
likelihood of conversion of the land prior to the year 2008
W.P.(C) No.12159/2023
when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
Act, 2008 came into force.
13. Furthermore, the petitioner would assert that on
two sides of the petitioner's property there are public roads
and the entire area surrounding the plots is a well developed
residential area with multiple number of buildings.
14. In view of the afore facts, I am of the firm opinion
that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall reconsider the
Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner based on
Ext.P8 KSREC report. Ext.P4 is therefore set aside.
The writ petition is disposed of directing the
1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the
Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner and pass
appropriate orders thereon taking into consideration Ext.P8
KSREC report also and if necessary, causing a Site Visit.
Fresh orders shall be passed within a period of two months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
sss
W.P.(C) No.12159/2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12159/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2504/2019
DATED 19.12.2019 OF S.R.O, OLAVAKKODE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
08.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 09.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER
NO.RDOPKD/4885/2021-J1 DATED
11.04.2022.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST STYLED AS AN
APPEAL DATED NIL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DATED 03.06.2022.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
09.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY
THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED
IN FORM NO.5 DATED 09-06-2022.
