Tojoraj K vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 8398 Ker

        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. 16548 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         TOJORAJ K.,
         AGED 42 YEARS,
         S/O DHARMARAJ K.,
         HOUSE NO. 19/393,
         OPP. SREEKRISHNA TEMPLE,
         KALVAKULAM,
         PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

         BY ADVS.
         RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
         ARUL MURALIDHARAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD,
         OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
         (DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE UNDER
         THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND
         WETLAND ACT, 2008)
    2    THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MALAMPUZHA,
         OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
         MALAMPUZHA PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678651
         (LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER
         THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND
         WETLAND ACT, 2008)


         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.16548/2023
                               :2:




                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of August, 2023

The petitioner, who is owner of 0.0202 Hectare of

property in Malampuzha-I Village, is challenging Ext.P6 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 0.0202 Hectare of

property comprised in Re-Survey No.178/3 of Block No.28 of

Malampuzha-I Village, Chittur 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 W.P.(C) No.16548/2023

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,

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.P6

order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order. According to

the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected

the petitioner's application solely based on a report dated

24.12.2021 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 W.P.(C) No.16548/2023

year 2008, contended the petitioner. If the order of the

Revenue Divisional Officer is allowed to stand, it will interfere

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 24.12.2021. 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 W.P.(C) No.16548/2023

unsettle the decision taken by the Revenue Divisional

Officer, the Government Pleader insisted.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

respondents.

9. The petitioner is owner of 0.0202 Hectare of

property comprised in Re-Survey No.178/3 of Block No.28 of

Malampuzha-I Village, Chittur 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.P6 order passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer. It is evident from Ext.P6 order

dated 20.05.2022 that the Revenue Divisional Officer has

passed the said order based on a report dated 24.12.2021 of

the Agricultural Officer, Malampuzha.

11. It is discernible from Ext.P6 that the Agricultural

Officer has reported that the land was lying fallow for long

period and that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation. The W.P.(C) No.16548/2023

Agricultural Officer opined that as the land is suitable for

paddy cultivation, the land need not be removed from the

Data Bank. The Agricultural Officer has taken note of the

recommendations of Local Level Monitoring Committee also.

12. The counsel for the petitioner would urge that

there is no irrigation facilities for paddy cultivation in the land.

The surrounding pieces of land are well developed with

construction of buildings. On either side of the land there are

residential properties and on two sides of the land there are

public roads. The petitioner would urge that the predecessor-

in-interest of the land obtained Kerala Land Utilisation Order

in respect of a larger extent of land including the land of the

petitioner invoking the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.

13. In view of the afore facts, I am of the view that the

Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have relied on Scientific

Data before coming to a conclusion adverse to the petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of setting aside

Ext.P6 order and directing that if the petitioner submits an

application to the 2nd respondent-Agricultural Officer paying W.P.(C) No.16548/2023

the prescribed fee for obtaining a KSREC report within a

period of two weeks, then the 1st respondent-Revenue

Divisional Officer shall reconsider the Form-5 application of

the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a

further period of two months from the date of receipt of the

KSREC report.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE sss W.P.(C) No.16548/2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16548/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.

1099/2013 OF SRO, OLAVAKKOD DATED 6-4-

2013 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO. 706/2009 DATED 6-3-2009 OF SRO, PALAKKAD EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH/ MAP DATED 124-2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAMPUZHA-I VILLAGE EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P5              TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
                        APPLICATION    SUBMITTED     BY    THE

PETITIONER DATED 16-4-2021 IN FORM NO.

5 FOR REMOVAL OF LAND FROM THE DATA BANK BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-5-2022 IN FILE NO. RDOPKD/1050/2022-J3 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT