Kerala High Court
Govindankutty Nair vs The District Collector on 16 November, 2023
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. 32009 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.KAMALAKSHY AMMA, KALUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHOWARA, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM-683563.
BY ADV V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, K B JACOB ROAD,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682001.
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683101.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHOWARA VILLAGE OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683563.
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
SREEMOLANAGARAM KRISHI BHAVAN, SREEMOLANAGARAM, ERNAKULAM-
683580.
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
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:
WP(C) NO. 32009 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
Ext.P4 order, whereby, the Form-5 application submitted by
the petitioner has been rejected, solely based on the report of
the Agricultural Officer. The petitioner contended that there
is no independent consideration on the application by the 2 nd
respondent.
2. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the interim
order passed by this Court on 28.10.2022, Ext.P5 KSRSEC
report was obtained which reveal that plot was observed
under mixed vegetation/plantation/trees with exposed soil
towards west in 2008 data. The same landuse pattern were
continuing in 2011 and 2017 and the data of 2022 shows
building/structures towards west and south side, while the
rest of the plot continued under mixed
vegetation/plantation/trees. On the basis of Ext.P5, the
petitioner submits that the property has been converted prior
to 2008, going by the report of the KSRSEC.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of
Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394] has held that the
WP(C) NO. 32009 OF 2022
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
WP(C) NO. 32009 OF 2022
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.
5. 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
WP(C) NO. 32009 OF 2022
on the decision of the LLMC, not to remove the land from the
data bank.
After hearing both sides, I am inclined to dispose of the
above writ petition with a consequential direction to the 2 nd
respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, who shall reconsider
Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner, within an
outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment after adverting to Ext.P5 KSRSEC report as
well as after conducting a site inspection. The petitioner is
free to submit notes of argument while raising all his
contentions and the 2nd respondent while reconsidering the
matter as directed above, shall advert to the contentions of
the petitioner in the argument notes also.
`
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 32009 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32009/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER FORM 5 DATED 8.1.2021
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
26.07.2022.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 16.1.2023 ISSUED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT
