Kerala High Court
Bijily Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 26 October, 2023
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. 35159 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
BIJILY JOSEPH
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. ISSAC, SAMATHA, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., KALATHU WARD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688006
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
MATHEW K.T.
M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
GEORGE K.V.
STEPHY K REGI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
3 SUB COLLECTOR
, OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COURT WARD,
THONDANKULANGARA, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688013
4 THE TAHSILDHAR
AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688003
5 VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, MANNAMCHERY VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688538
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
MANNAMCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP BY ITS CONVENOR,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MANNAMCHERY, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688538
7 THE MANNAMCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REP BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, MANNAMCHERY,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688538
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - Sri.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.35159 of 2023 :2:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C). No.35159 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 submits that there is no independent
consideration by the 3rd respondent while issuing Ext.P2 order and
the 3rd respondent only followed the report submitted by the
Agricultural Officer. The petitioner relies on the judgment in
Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023
(4) KHC 524] and also the judgment in Aparna Sasi Menon v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (5) KLT 432] in support of
her 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 3rd respondent. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the
matter. 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
theretofore, 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 3 rd 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 3 rd
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 relied on by her before the 3 rd
respondent, which shall be duly considered by the 3 rd respondent
while reconsidering the matter as directed above.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35159/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 . TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.
3510963 DTD. 29.08.2016 ISSUED TO
PETITIONER BY 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P1 (a) TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.
KLO$010706956/2023 DTD.26.06.2023 ISSUED
BY 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M8037/2022 DDS DTD.
18.10.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DTD. 28.02.2023
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER WITH 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. DCALP2658/2023-
C10 DTD. 04.04.2023 ISSUED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DTD. 24.09.2022
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
MANNAMCHERY
