Kakkachi Abdul Kalam vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 10248 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
   THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 31032 OF 2023
PETITIONER :


          KAKKACHI ABDUL KALAM, AGED 58 YEARS,
          KAKKACHI ABDUL KALAM, S/O ABOOBAKER HAJI,
          CHEELAN HOUSE, MATTOOL NORTH,
          KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 325

          BY ADV M.ANUROOP


RESPONDENTS :


    1     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
          REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695 001

    2     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA,
          KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 141

    3     VILLAGE OFFICER, MATTOOL VILLAGE OFFICE,
          KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 325

    4     MATTOOL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          MATTOOL, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 325

    5     THE CONVENERLOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
          MATTOOL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT,
          PIN - 670 325



          BY SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 31032 OF 2023
                                      2

                     BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       W.P.(C) No.31032 of 2023
                    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
               Dated this the 21st day of September, 2023


                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner, is the owner of 08.80 Ares of property in Re-Survey No.

303/3 of Block No.153 of Mattool Village in Taliparamba Taluk in Kannur

District. Challenge is against Ext.P1 order of the 2 nd respondent, whereby

the petitioner's request to remove his land from the data bank stands

rejected.

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, petitioner requires the land for other

purposes, he submitted Form-5 application, invoking Rule 4(4d) of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short,

the Rules).

3. By the impugned order, application was rejected by the Revenue

Divisional Officer. According to the petitioner, the application was rejected

solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer without even a site

inspection or any application of mind and is hence not a speaking order. WP(C) NO. 31032 OF 2023

4. I have heard Sri. M.Anuroop, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Smt.Amminikutty, the learned Senior Government Pleader and have

also perused Ext.P1 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 08.03.2022. Petitioner

asserts that the surrounding areas are well-developed and submits that

the impugned order has not even referred to the cultivability of

petitioner's land or any other factors required to be considered. Petitioner

also asserted that the surrounding areas are well-developed and also that

the impugned order has not referred to the cultivability of petitioner's

land.

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.

7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the aforementioned

specific aspects have not been adverted to and instead, the application WP(C) NO. 31032 OF 2023

has been rejected solely on the basis of the report of the Agricultural

Officer. The RDO could have considered obtaining the report of scientific

data for deciding the matter by directing the petitioner to apply for the

same or to conduct a site visit. 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. Evidently, 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 view of the above, I quash Ext.P1 order and direct the 2 nd

respondent to reconsider Form 5 application filed by the petitioner and

issue fresh orders, after considering the report of KSREC if the petitioner

applies for the data within two weeks and other relevant factors

mentioned in rule 4(f) 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.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

RKM WP(C) NO. 31032 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31032/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1          THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO
                    TALIPARAMBA DATED 13-10-2022

Exhibit 2           THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES AND DECISION
                    TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT, MATTOOL GRAMA
                    PNCHAYATH DATED 21-02-2022