Gireesh Kumar G vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 10933 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
         THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                           WP(C) NO. 9090 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:

     1       GIREESH KUMAR G.,
             AGED 42 YEARS
             S/O GANGADHARAN NAIR, HARISREE,
             ARUVIYODE, KARINGAL, MARANALLOOR,
             KANDALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695512

     2       REVATHY U. S.,
             AGED 35 YEARS
             W/O GIREESH KUMAR G., HARISREE,
             ARUVIYODE, KARINGAL, MARANALLOOR,
             KANDALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695512

             BY ADVS.
             BIJU C ABRAHAM
             THOMAS C.ABRAHAM(K/517/2022)
             BASIL MATHEW(K/000588/2020)



RESPONDENT/S:

     1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
             2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043

     2       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541

     3       THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
             MARANALLOOR PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS CONVENER,
             AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AGRICULTURE OFFICE,
             MARANALLOOR, KOOVALASSERI PO,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695512

     4       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, MANANALLOOR,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695512
 WP(C) No.9090 of 2023               2




OTHER PRESENT:

            GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S.



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.9090 of 2023                                   3




                                VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
                .................................................................
                            W.P (C) No.9090 of 2023
                .................................................................
                 Dated this the 26th day of October, 2023


                                      JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Exts.P9 and

P10 orders whereby Exts.P1 and P2 Form 5 applications submitted by

them were rejected.

2. 1st petitioner is the owner of 03.91 Ares of property comprised in

re-survey no.334/9 and 15.70 Ares of property comprised in re-survey

no.334/8 and the 2nd petitioner is the owner of 14.04 Ares of property

comprised in re-survey no.334/9-1, in Block no.10 in Maranalloor Village,

Kattakkada Taluk. The contention of the petitioners is that the properties

though described as 'nilam' in revenue records, same is naturally

converted as dry land and has become a rubber plantation and that the

surrounding properties are also dry land. It is contended that no paddy

cultivation is undertaken in the nearby properties. In spite of the same

the property was included as paddy land in the data bank. Thereupon

the petitioners were constrained to file Exts.P1 and P2 Form 5

applications. Petitioners submitted that the said applications were

dismissed by the 2nd respondent as per Exts.P9 and P10 orders.

Petitioners would contend that none of the parameters for consideration

of a Form 5 application has been taken into consideration while issuing

Exts.P9 and P10 orders.

3. A perusal of Exts.P9 and P10 orders would reveal that the

applications have been rejected solely on the report of the Agricultural

Officer without any independent assessment of the status of the land. It

is also revealed that not even a site inspection is seen conducted by the

authorities and that there is no independent consideration by the 2 nd

respondent. Petitioners relying on the judgment Arthasasthra Ventrues

(India) LLP v. State of Kerala, 2022 (7) KHC 591 and in

Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (4) KHC

524 contended that this Court has observed that the Revenue Divisional

Officer cannot merely follow the report of the Agricultural Officer or the

LLMC without any independent assessment of the status of the land.

This Court in the judgments cited supra has also observed that while

considering an application filed under Form 5, the authority must

consider whether the removal of 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, this Court

has observed that when the competent authority considers a Form 5

application, the predominant consideration should be whether the land

which is sought to be excluded from the data bank is one where paddy

cultivation is possible and feasible including the existence of irrigation

facilities.

A perusal of Exts.P9 and P10 would reveal that none of these

parameters has been considered while rejecting Exts.P1 and P2 Form 5

applications. Further that in Exts.P9 and P10 there is no finding that the

land is suitable for paddy cultivation and whether there is any paddy

cultivation in the nearby areas. The 2nd respondent ought to have

conducted a site inspection or if required, ought to have called for a

KSRSEC report for ascertaining the actual factual situation. None of

these has been done in the present case. Therefore Exts.P9 and P10

orders are quashed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider

Exts.P1 and P2 applications in Form 5, if required after considering the

KSRSEC report and other relevant factors mentioned in Rule 4(4f) of the

Rules, 2008. The matter shall be reconsidered and fresh orders shall be

passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made

clear that if KSRSEC report is required for deciding the same, petitioners

shall make necessary payment for the same on request made by the

Agricultural Officer. Petitioners will be free to submit their argument

notes producing the judgments in support of their contentions and the 2 nd

respondent shall duly consider the same, while reconsidering the matter

as directed above.

With the abovesaid direction, the above writ petition is disposed

of.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

cks

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9090/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION DATED 10.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION DATED 10.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 02.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT/VILLAGE OFFICER

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND IDENTIFICATION REPORT DATED 24.03.2012 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE SURVEY NOS. 334/8,334/9 AND 334/9-1

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.01.2022 RELATED TO 1ST PETITIONER'S PROPERTY SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.01.2022 RELATED TO 2ND PETITIONER'S PROPERTY SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.6519/22/K.DIS DATED 10.05.2022 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.6520/22/K.DIS DATED 10.05.2022 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2023 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT