Kerala High Court
Suprabha.S vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 35355 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SUPRABHA.S., AGED 61 YEARS
W/O.PRASANNAKUMAR T.K,
THAYYAKODATH (H),
MUTHALAKKODAM(P.O), THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKI., PIN - 685605
BY ADV AVANEESH KOYIKKARA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
COLLETORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.,
PIN - 682030
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA,
MUVATTUPUZHA POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 686669
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR., PIN - 695033
5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
(REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER)
KRISHI BHAVAN, MAZHUVANNOOR, NELLAD P.O.,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686669
WP(C) No.35355 of 2023 2
6 AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, MAZHUVANNOOR, NELLAD P.O.,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 686669
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.35355 of 2023 3
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P (C) No.35355 of 2023
.................................................................
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3
orders whereby Form 5 application as well as a review petition filed
seeking review of Ext.P2 order, submitted by her was rejected.
2. Petitioner is the absolute owner and title holder of an extent of 10.50
Ares of land comprised in survey no.243/10 of Irapuram Village in
Ernakulam District. Petitioner submits that the property has been shown as
paddy land in the data bank by mistake. Thereupon she has preferred an
application under Form 5 which was rejected as per Ext.P2 order. Though
a review petition was filed before the 3 rd respondent, the same was also
rejected as per Ext.P3 order. Petitioner would contend that it is solely
based on the report of the Agricultural Officer that the application has been
rejected and there is no independent consideration by the 3rd respondent to
the parameters to be looked into while considering a Form 5 application.
Petitioner relies on the judgment in Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional
Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam, 2021 (1) KHC 540 wherein it is held
that the determination as to whether a land is a paddy land or not is based
on the facts existing at the time of coming into force of the Act 28 of 2008,
ie.,12.08.2008. Petitioner also relies on the judgment in 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
wherein 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 Ext.P2 order would reveal that none of these
parameters has been considered while rejecting Form 5 application,
instead the application has been rejected solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer. The 3rd respondent ought to have conducted a site
inspection or have called for a KSRSEC report for ascertaining the actual
factual situation in respect of the said property as on the date of coming
into force of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Since
none of these has been done in the present case, I find that there is total
non-application of mind by the 3rd respondent while issuing Ext.P2 order.
Therefore Ext.P2 order is quashed with a direction to the 3 rd respondent to
reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, if required
after obtaining the KSRSEC report and conducting a site inspection and
taking into consideration other relevant factors mentioned in Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules, 2008. The matter shall be reconsidered and fresh order 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, petitioner shall
make necessary payment for the same on request made by the Agricultural
Officer.
With the abovesaid direction, the above writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35355/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
1.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE IRAPURAM VILLAGE
OFFICE.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A13-
2714/22/K.DIS DATED 12.05.2022 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.A13-2726/2023/L.DIS DATED 13.06.2023
OF THE RDO.
