Shaji vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 9031 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
                    WP(C) NO. 26013 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         SHAJI, AGED 55 YEARS
         S/O. KUNJALI, PUTHUKKUDI MEETHAL HOUSE,
         KURUVANGAD P.O., KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE - 673620

         BY ADVS.
         SHAKTHI PRAKASH
         MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, NORTH
         KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673020
    2    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
         MANANTHAVADY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
         GANDI PARK, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN - 670645
    3    THE TAHSILDAR
         VYTHIRI TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHIDAVAKA,
         VYTHIRI WAYANAD, PIN - 673576
    4    THE VILLAGE OFFICER
         MUTTIL SOUTH VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTTIL P.O.,
         WAYANAD, PIN - 673122
    5    THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, MUTTIL KRISHI BHAVAN,
         MUTTIL SOUTH, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122
    6    THE DIRECTOR
         KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
         CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

         SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
         SRI.S.VISHNU, STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP      FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.08.2023,      THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.26013 of 2023

                              2




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2023

The petitioner, who is owner of 4.86 Ares of property in

Muttil South Village, is challenging Ext.P3 order of the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Mananthavady, whereby the

petitioner's request to remove the petitioner's land from Data

Bank stands rejected.

2. The petitioner owns 4.86 Ares of property

comprised in Survey No.197/6, Block No.17 of Muttil South

Village, Vythiri Taluk of Wayanad 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

'Purayidam'.

3. However, when a Data Bank of Paddy Land and

Wetland was constituted under Section 5(4)(i) of the Kerala WP(C) No.26013 of 2023

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.

Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application in Form-

5, 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.P3

order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order. According to

the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the

petitioner's application solely based on a report submitted by

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

'Purayidam'. Had the Revenue Divisional Officer harboured

any doubt in this regard, he should have ordered to obtain WP(C) No.26013 of 2023

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 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

28.01.2023. The said Report was made on the basis of a Site

inspection. The report specifically recommended that the land WP(C) No.26013 of 2023

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.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

respondents.

9. The petitioner owns 4.86 Ares of property

comprised in Survey No.197/6, Block No.17 of Muttil South

Village, Vythiri Taluk of Wayanad 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 Ext.P2 application in Form-5.

10. I have perused Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2023 of

the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mananthavady. The Revenue

Divisional Officer has passed the said order based on a report

dated 28.01.2023 submitted by the Agricultural Officer, Muttil. WP(C) No.26013 of 2023

11. Ext.P3 would indicate that the Agricultural Officer

has examined the matter and has found that the land was not

converted in the year 2008. The land is a fallow land. There is

waterlogging on the southern side of the property. There is a

canal on the northern side of the property. Therefore, the

Agricultural Officer concluded that this is a land fit for paddy

cultivation and hence, not removable from the Data Bank. It is

based on the recommendation of the Agricultural Officer that

the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected Ext.P3

application.

12. The petitioner would assert that the entire area is

well developed. There is a Nation Highway passing through

the adjacent property. There are building constructions near

the property in question. There are standing trees also on the

boundaries of the property. Under the afore circumstances, 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.

WP(C) No.26013 of 2023

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

setting aside Ext.P3 and directing that if the petitioner submits

an application to the 5th respondent-Agricultural Officer for

obtaining KSREC Report paying prescribed fee within a

period of two weeks, the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional

Officer, Mananthavady shall pass orders afresh on Ext.P2

Form-5 application within a further period of two months from

the date of receipt of the KSREC Report.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.26013 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26013/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.06.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18.03.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER