Kerala High Court
Ram Mohan.R vs The District Collector Kozhikode on 18 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 26TH ASWINA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 30026 OF 2023
PETITIONER :
RAM MOHAN R.,
AGED 50 YEARS,
FLAT NO.F4 BLOCK C ORCHID GARDEN,
P.V. S PARK, GOVINDA PURAM, KOTTULLI P.O,
KOTTULLI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673016,
NOW RESIDING AT AMARAVATHI HOUSE,
CHENDAMANGALAAM DESOM, CHORODE P.O,
CHORODE VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODEE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 106
BY ADVS.
PRABHU K.N.
DINESH G WARRIER
RESPONDENTS :
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE,
COLLECTORATE KOZHIKODE,CIVIL STATION P.O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER VADAKARA,
PWD REST HOUSE, OLD BUS STAND, VADAKARA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 101
3 THE TAHASILDAR KOYILANDY TALUK,
MINI CIVIL STATION, KOYILANDY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673305
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ULLIYERI VILLAGE,
ULLIYERI, KOYILANDY TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673323
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ULLIYERI,
ULLIYERI, KOYILANDY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 323
WP(C) NO. 30026 OF 2023
2
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
LAND AND WETLAND ACT 2008) REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENOR ,THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ULLIYERI,
KOYILANDY TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673 323
BY SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING :
WP(C) NO. 30026 OF 2023
3
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P.(C) No.30026 of 2023
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, is the owner of 8.49 Ares of land in Re-Survey No.1/1 of
Ulliyeri Village, Koyilandy Taluk, Kozhikode District. Challenge is against
Ext.P3 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vadakara, whereby the
petitioner's request to remove his land from the data bank was refused.
2. Petitioner alleges that his land was converted prior to the
enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,
2008 (for short, the Act), and it is presently a 'dry land'. However, when
the data bank was prepared under Section 5(4)(i) of the Act, his land was
wrongly included in it. Since the petitioner requires the land for other
purposes, he submitted an application in Form-5, invoking Rule 4(4d) of
the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for
short, the Rules).
3. By the impugned order, petitioner's application was rejected by
the Revenue Divisional Officer. Petitioner alleges that the rejection was
based solely on the report of the Agricultural Officer, without any site
inspection and without any application of mind and is hence not a
WP(C) NO. 30026 OF 2023
speaking order.
4. I have heard Sri. Prabhu K.N., learned counsel for the petitioner
and Smt.Deepa N., the learned Senior Government Pleader and have also
perused Ext.P3 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
5. Petitioner's application in Form 5 of the Rules was rejected relying
on the Agricultural Officer's report dated 11.02.2021. The said report
stated that petitioner's land need not be excluded from the data bank.
Petitioner asserted that the surrounding areas are well-developed with
multiple buildings and also that the impugned order had not even referred
to the suitability of the land for paddy cultivation.
6. In the decision in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State
of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] and in Muraleedharan Nair R. v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], this Court had
observed that the RDO cannot merely follow the report of the Agricultural
Officer or the LLMC without any independent assessment of the status of
the land. This Court had also observed that while considering an
application filed under Form 5, the Authority must consider whether the
removal of the property from the data bank will affect paddy cultivation in
the land and also whether it will affect the nearby paddy fields. Similarly,
in the decision in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer
Irinjalakuda [2023 (6) KHC 83] it has been observed that when the
competent authority considers a Form-5 application, the predominant
WP(C) NO. 30026 OF 2023
consideration should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded
from data bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible
including the existence of irrigation facilities.
7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the aforementioned
specific aspects have not been adverted to, and instead, the application
has been rejected solely on the basis of the report of the Agricultural
Officer. The RDO could have atleast perused the scientific data for
deciding the matter by directing the petitioner to apply for the same or by
conducting a site visit. There is also no finding that the land is suitable for
paddy cultivation and whether there are any paddy lands in the nearby
areas. Since the order is bereft of material particulars and is not issued
on any perceivable data, it cannot be said to be a reasoned order.
Discernibly, there is no independent application of mind to the relevant
circumstances, and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside
and a fresh consideration be made.
8. In the above circumstances, Ext.P3 is quashed and the 2 nd
respondent is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by
the petitioner and issue fresh orders, after considering the report of
KSREC, if applied and obtained and other relevant factors mentioned in
rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The order, as directed above, shall be issued
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment.
WP(C) NO. 30026 OF 2023
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE
RKM
WP(C) NO. 30026 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30026/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY ULLIYERI VILLAGE, KOYILANDY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT DATED 11.07.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT DATED 11.02.2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT REJECTING THE FORM 5
APPLICATION SUPRA DATED 08-07-2021
