Renju Lawrence vs District Collector, Ernakulam
2023 Latest Caselaw 11720 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 37793 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

             RENJU LAWRENCE
             AGED 39 YEARS
             S/O LAWRENCE, NELLIPARAMBIL, VARANAD P.O,
             CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688539
             BY ADVS.
             SARUN RAJAN
             JUDE JAMES
             R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
             ARCHANA HARIDAS K.

RESPONDENTS:

     1       DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
             CIVIL STATION, KAKKAKAND, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
     2       2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI
             FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB RD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,
             PIN - 682001
     3       3. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
             EDATHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM
             DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
             AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KANGARAPPADY,
             VADACODE P.O. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
OTHER PRESENT:

             GP - RIYAL DEVASSY


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   16.11.2023,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C). No.37793 of 2023       :2:



                           VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
         --     -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                       W.P.(C) No.37793 of 2023
         --     -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                Dated this the 16th day of November, 2023

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3

order, whereby the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner

has been rejected by the 2nd respondent.

2. The petitioner is the co-owner and title holder of an extent

of 01.95 Ares of property comprised in Survey No. 98/9-4 of

Thrikkakara North Village, in Ernakulam District. The petitioner

asserts that the said property is lying as a dry land and is

surrounded by multi-storied buildings, houses and roads and paddy

is not cultivated in the plot and also in the adjacent area. The said

property is wrongly included in the data bank. Thereupon the

petitioner has preferred a Form-5 application, to remove the

property from the data bank and the 2 nd respondent as per Ext.P3

order, rejected the same solely relying on Ext.P2 report of the

Local Level Monitoring Committee. The petitioner submits that

there is no independent consideration by the 2 nd respondent

regarding the issue involved.

3. This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala

and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394] has held that the Data Bank that

was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain

details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of

jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in Lalu P.S. v. State of

Kerala[2020 (5) KHC 490] has held that the data bank to be

prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy

land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules,

i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub

Collector[2021 (1) KLT 433] it was held that it is the character

and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to

include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in

Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala[2022

(4) KLT OnLine 1222] has held that the most relevant aspect

while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in

question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came

into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if

the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available

materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including

satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. This court in

Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (4)

KLT 270] has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his

land from the Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue

Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that the

LLMC has decided not to remove the land from Data Bank. The

Revenue Divisional Officer being the competent authority, has to

independently assess the status of the land and come to a

conclusion that removal of the land from Data Bank will adversely

affect paddy cultivation in the land in question or in the nearby

paddy lands or that it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands

in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned

order is unsustainable. Further, this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon

v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (5) KLT 432] has held that

the predominant factor for consideration while considering the

Form-5 application should be whether the land which is sought to

be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is

possible and feasible.

4. In spite of these categorical declaration by this Court in a

catena of judgments as cited above, the application submitted by

the petitioner has been rejected solely relying on the decision of

the LLMC, not to remove the land from the data bank.

5. In view of the above, Ext.P3 is set aside with a

consequential direction to the 2 nd respondent to reconsider the

Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner

submits an application to the Agricultural Officer concerned

seeking to obtain KSRSEC Report remitting the prescribed fee

within a period of two weeks, the 2 nd respondent shall pass order

afresh in the Form-5 application within a further period of three

months from the date of receipt of the KSRSEC Report and take a

final decision in the matter after considering the report as well as

the relevant factors stipulated in Rule 4 (4f) of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Petitioner

will be free to file argument notes incorporating copies of the

judgments relied on by him to substantiate his contentions and the

2nd respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above,

shall advert to the findings by this Court in those judgments cited

(supra) and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument

notes submitted by him.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37793/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE Exhibit-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.02.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT THEREBY REJECTING THE FORM 5 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER