Unnikrishnan vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 9970 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
 MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945
                   WP(C) NO. 30455 OF 2023


PETITIONER:

          UNNIKRISHNAN
          AGED 53 YEARS
          S/O. RAGHAVAN,
          SASTHAMVALAPPIL, PERAMANGALAM.,
          THRISSUR, PIN - 680545

          BY ADVS.
          SHAKTHI PRAKASH
          MUHASIN K.M.
          FARHANA K.H.
          AMJATHA D.A.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          CIVIL STATION,
          AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

    2     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          THRISSUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
          CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
          THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

    3     THE TAHSILDAR
          THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE,
          CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
          THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

    4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          PERAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
 W.P.(C).No.30455 of 2023
                                      -:2:-




              PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680545

     5        THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
              KAIPARAMBU KRISHI BHAVAN,
              MUNDOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680541

              BY ADV.
              DEVISHRI R


       THIS    WRIT        PETITION   (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION      ON   18.09.2023,       THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.30455 of 2023
                                     -:3:-




                       BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

-------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30455 of 2023

--------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of September, 2023

Petitioner, is the owner of 30.20 Ares of land, out of which 8.82

Ares comprised in Survey No.308/3 of Peramangalam Village in

Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District is shown as 'Nilam'. Challenge in this

writ petition is against Ext.P3 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Ayyanthole, Thrissur, rejecting petitioner's request to remove his land

from the data bank.

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, as per Rule 4(4d) of the

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

the Rules).

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

Revenue Divisional Officer. According to the petitioner, the application W.P.(C).No.30455 of 2023

was rejected based solely on the report of the Agricultural Officer

without even a site inspection or any application of mind and is hence

not a speaking order.

4. I have heard Sri. Shakthi Prakash, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Smt. Devishri.R, the learned Government Pleader and

have also perused the impugned order.

5. Petitioner's application in Form 5 of the Rules was rejected

relying on the Agricultural Officer's report dated 04.03.2022. The said

report stated that petitioner's land is suitable for paddy cultivation,

and that it need not be excluded from the data bank. Petitioner relies

upon the KSREC report produced as Ext.P4 and 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.

6. Petitioner has produced the KSREC report as Ext.P4. Petitioner

asserted that the surrounding areas are well-developed with multiple

buildings and also that the impugned order has not referred to the

cultivability of petitioner's land.

7. 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 W.P.(C).No.30455 of 2023

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.

8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the

aforementioned specific aspects have not been adverted to and

instead, the application has been rejected solely on the basis of the

report of the Agricultural Officer. The RDO had not even considered

the report of scientific data for deciding the matter or conduct a site

inspection. 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. Apparently, 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.

9. In view of the above, I quash Ext.P3 order and direct the 2nd

respondent to reconsider Form 5 application filed by the petitioner and

issue fresh orders, after considering the report of KSREC and other

relevant factors mentioned in rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The order, as

directed above, shall be issued within a period of two months from the W.P.(C).No.30455 of 2023

date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE Jka/18.09.23.

W.P.(C).No.30455 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30455/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.07.2023.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 14.06.2021.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S FORM 5 APPLICATION.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 18.06.2022.

Exhibit P5                 A COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS            OF     THE
                           PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER