Kunjumuhamed K M vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 9038 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. 24206 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         KUNJUMUHAMED K M
         AGED 68 YEARS
         S/O MUHAMMED KACHAMKUZHI HOUSE,
         SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM, MALAYIDAMTHURUTH P.O,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683561

         BY ADVS.
         P.E.SAJAL
         AJAS K.S.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
         REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE MUVATTUPUZHA-,
         PIN - 686661
    2    AGRICULTURE OFFICER
         KIZHAKKAMBALAM KRISHI BHAVAN,
         KIZHAKKAMBALAM,ERNAKULAM -, PIN - 683562

         SMT.AMMINIKUTTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     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.24206 of 2023

                                  2


                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2023

The petitioner, who is owner of 8.31 Ares of property in

Kizhakkambalam Village, is challenging Ext.P7 order of the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha, whereby the

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

Bank stands rejected.

2. The petitioner owns 8.31 Ares of property

comprised in Survey Nos.38/3-4, 38/4-4 and 38/6-6 of Block

No.25 of Kizhakkambalam Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk of

Ernakulam 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

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the

petitioner's land was included in the Data Bank. The WP(C) No.24206 of 2023

petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes.

Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 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.P7

order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 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

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 WP(C) No.24206 of 2023

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

11.07.2023. 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 WP(C) No.24206 of 2023

insisted.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

respondents.

9. The petitioner owns 8.31 Ares of property

comprised in Survey Nos.38/3-4, 38/4-4 and 38/6-6 of Block

No.25 of Kizhakkambalam Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk of

Ernakulam 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.P5

application in Form-5.

10. I have perused Ext.P7 order dated 15.07.2023

passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha.

The order has been passed based on a report dated

11.07.2023 of the Agricultural Officer, Kizhakkambalam.

Ext.P7 would indicate that the Agricultural Officer has

obtained a report from the Local Level Monitoring Committee.

The Local Level Monitoring Committee noted that there are no

buildings or trees in the property of the petitioner. They also WP(C) No.24206 of 2023

stated that the petitioner's property is adjoining Ambunadu

Padasekharam.

11. It is based on the afore reports that the Revenue

Divisional Officer has rejected the application of the petitioner.

The petitioner would point out that the petitioner has obtained

Ext.P8 Report from the KSREC, which would indicate that the

plot of the petitioner was observed under mixed vegetation /

plantation / trees in the data of the year 2008. In the

subsequent years, the plot was observed as partially exposed

soil.

12. The petitioner would assert that all the properties

surrounding the petitioner's land has been developed by

constructing residential and other buildings. Ext.P7 order

does not indicate that the petitioner's land is fit for paddy

cultivation. There is also no indication that there is any

cultivating paddy fields in the nearby areas.

13. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the 1 st

respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha shall

reconsider Ext.P5 Form-5 application submitted by the WP(C) No.24206 of 2023

petitioner adverting to Ext.P8 KSREC Report and if necessary

after causing a site inspection of the area.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of setting aside

Ext.P7 and directing the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional

Officer, Muvattupuzha to reconsider Ext.P5 Form-5

application submitted by the petitioner adverting to Ext.P8

KSREC Report. Orders afresh shall be passed within a

period of two months.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.24206 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24206/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO 118/2012 DATED 06/01/2012 REGISTERED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR PUTHENCRUZ Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED 03/06/2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF DATA BANK DATED 16/10/2016 PUBLISHED BY 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO GRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IN THE ROAD LEVEL Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 20-10-2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE L.L.M.C DATED 28-02-

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 15-07-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE K.S.R.E.C REPORT OF THE PETITIONERS LAND DATED 03/03/2023