P.S. Hari vs Revenue Divisional Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 10963 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. 20723 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:

         P.S. HARI
         AGED 62 YEARS
         S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, PULIYAMMANAL HOUSE,
         KUMARAMPUTHUR, CHANGALEERI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
         PIN - 678762
         BY ADV DEEPAK MOHAN

RESPONDENT/S:

    1     REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT
          NAGAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
    2     LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
          ERIMAYUR, REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
          KRISHI BHAVAN, ERIMAYUR, THRIPPALUR, PALAKKAD
          DISTRICT, PIN - 678546
    3     VILLAGE OFFICER
          ERIMAYUR VILLAGE,THRIPPALUR, ERIMAYUR, PALAKKAD
          DISTRICT, PIN - 678546
    4     THE DIRECTOR
          KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
          CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF
          KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
          BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:

          GP - RIYAL DEVASSY
    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C). No.20723 of 2023      :2:




                           VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
         --     -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                      W.P.(C). No.20723 of 2023
         --     -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                 Dated this the 26th day of October, 2023

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2

order, whereby the application submitted by the petitioner in

Form-5 has been rejected.

2. The petitioner is having an extent of 15.98 Ares of land in

Sy. No.448/15 of Erimayur Village of Alathur Taluk. The petitioner

submits that though the above said property is not suitable for any

paddy cultivation and lying as converted land for several decades,

it is wrongly included in the Data Bank. Thereupon an application

in Form-5 was submitted to remove the property from the data

bank. But without conducting any inspection and solely relying on

the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer, the 1 st respondent

has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner by Ext.P2

and there is no independent consideration by the 1 st respondent

regarding the nature and lie of the property. The petitioner relies

on the judgments in Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue

Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524] and Aparna Sasi

Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (5) KLT 432] in

support of his contention.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. In Muraleedharan Nair's case cited (Supra), this Court

has held that when the applicant seeks removal of his land from

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 and the Revenue

Divisional Officer being the competent authority has to

independently assess the status of the land. A perusal of Ext.P2

would reveal that no such independent assessment has been done

by the 1st respondent. In Aparna Sasi's case cited (Supra), the

Court held as follows:

"21. In the afore context, when the competent authority considers a Form-5 application submitted under Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the predominant factor for consideration should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.

22. In very small plots of land which are surrounded by commercial or residential buildings, though such land is described as paddy land in the revenue records and though it may be technically possible to cultivate

the land with paddy, still such cultivation will not be ordinarily possible and financially feasible.

23. In the case of lands having any extent, the factor whether there are proper irrigation facilities making the land suitable for paddy cultivation would be important. Even if the land is of a comparatively larger extent, if there are no irrigation and other requisite facilities, it cannot be said that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation, merely because it was once cultivated with paddy and it is described as paddy land in revenue records."

Ext. P2 order has been issued solely based on the report of the

Agricultural Officer and there is no independent consideration and

therefore, the same goes against the mandates of Muraleedharan

Nair's and Aparna Sasi's case cited(Supra).

Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside and the writ petition is

disposed of with a consequential direction to the 1 st respondent to

reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner in

accordance with law, taking into consideration the law laid down

by this Court in Muraleedharan Nair's case and Aparna Sasi's

case cited (Supra) and a decision shall be taken by the 1 st

respondent as directed above, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment. The petitioner is free to submit an argument

note producing all the judgments in support of his contentions

before the 1st respondent, which shall be duly considered by the 1 st

respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20723/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.06.2023 AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPT