Alley George vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 4389 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4389 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 February, 2024

Kerala High Court

Alley George vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 6 February, 2024

Author: Murali Purushothaman

Bench: Murali Purushothaman

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
     TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
                         WP(C) NO.2288 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

             ALLEY GEORGE, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.GEORGE K.JOHN,
             KOCHERIL (VADAKKEKUTTIKKATTIL) HOUSE,
             MANNATHOOR P.O, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686667
             BY ADV.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN


RESPONDENTS:

      1      THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
             REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
             MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686669
      2      AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
             KRISHI BHAVAN THIRUMARADY, THIRUMARADY P O,
             MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686662
      3      VILLAGE OFFICER
             VILLAGE OFFICE THIRUMARADY, THIRUMARADY P O,
             MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686662


             SMT.R.DEVISREE, GP



       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   06.02.2024,   THE    COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.2288 of 2024               2



                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner in possession of 8.9

Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.423/9B2 of

Thirumarady Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, obtained

by virtue of Ext.P1 settlement deed. According to

the petitioner, the aforesaid property is recorded

as 'nilam' in the BTR and 'converted land' in

Ext.P2 Data Bank. Accordingly, the petitioner has

filed Ext.P3 application in Form 5 before the 1 st

respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer [RDO], and

the RDO rejected the same by Ext.P4 order. In

Ext.P4 it is stated that as per the report of the

Agricultural Officer, the property was converted

after 2008 and the petitioner was issued with stop

memo and therefore, the LLMC has recommended not

to exclude the property from the Data Bank.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition

challenging Ext.P4 contending inter alia that the

same is vitiated by non application of mind and is

against the provisions of the Act, 2008 and the

binding precedents of this Court. It is also

contended that the RDO should have called for a

report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and

Environment Centre, Thiruvananthapuram [for short,

'the KSRSEC'] to ascertain the status of the land

as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of

the Act, 2008.

3. The relevant consideration for inclusion of

a property as paddy land or wet land is as to the

nature of the property as on the date of coming

into force of the Act, 2008. On a perusal of

Ext.P4, it is evident that, without any

independent assessment of the nature of the as on

the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008,

the RDO has relied solely upon the report of the

Agricultural Officer and LLMC to refuse to remove

the property from the Data Bank.

4. This Court has held in the decision in

Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of

Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] that, the Revenue

Divisional Officer must, while considering an

application for removal of a property from the

Data Bank, consider the question whether the land

was a paddy land on the date of coming into force

of the Act and also whether the land is suitable

for paddy cultivation or not. This Court in

Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer

[2023 (4) KLT 270] has held that when the

petitioner seeks removal of his land from the 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. The Revenue

Divisional Officer being the competent authority,

has to independently assess the status of the land

and come to a conclusion that removal of the land

from Data Bank will adversely affect paddy

cultivation in the land in question or in the

nearby paddy lands or that it will adversely

affect sustenance of wetlands in the area and in

the absence of such findings, the impugned order

is unsustainable. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue

Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83] this Court

has held that the predominant factor for

consideration while considering the Form-5

application should be whether the land which is

sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where

paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.

In spite of the above categorical declarations

by this Court in the decisions cited above, the

petitioner's application has been rejected, solely

relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer,

which recommended not to remove the land from the

data bank. Accordingly I find that Ext.P4 order

cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with

a direction to the 1st respondent, the Revenue

Divisional Officer, to reconsider Ext.P3

application in accordance with law and take a

decision in the matter after obtaining KSRSEC

report at the expense of the petitioner, within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a

copy of the report of the KSRSEC. The petitioner

shall apply before the Agricultural Officer

concerned for KSRSEC report within a period of two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of with the

above direction.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE sp/06/02/2024

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.

1467/2006 DATED 17/07/2006 OF SRO KOOTHATTUKULAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.