Kerala High Court
Roy M Mathew vs The Agricultural Officer on 15 February, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO.5850 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ROY M.MATHEW, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.M.MATHEW,
CHAIRMAN, MUTHOOTTU MINI THEATRES PVT. LTD.,
MUTHOOTTU HOUSE, KOZHENCHERY, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689641
BY ADVS.
S.VINOD BHAT
ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R
V.NAMITHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
CHENGAMANAD KRISHI BHAVAN, CHENGAMANAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683102
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001
3 THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENDING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE (KSRSEC)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, C BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY SMT.R.DEVISREE, GP
SRI.VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC, KSRSEC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.5850 of 2024 2
C.R.
JUDGMENT
The property of the petitioner is included in
the Data Bank published under the provisions of
clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,
2008 [for brevity, 'the Act, 2008']. The
petitioner has filed Ext.P2 application in Form 5
under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 [for brevity,
'the Rules, 2008'] before the 2nd respondent, the
Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to remove the
said property from the Data Bank. Since there was
delay in considering the said application, he
filed WP(C) No.38214 of 2023 seeking direction to
the RDO to consider and pass orders on Ext. P2.
This Court, by Ext.P3 judgment dated 17.11.2023,
disposed of the said writ petition directing the
2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.
P2 Form 5 application in accordance with law,
within a period of five months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner
states that, pursuant to Ext. P2 application, the
RDO called for a report from the Local Level
Monitoring Committee (LLMC). According to the
petitioner, he came to know that there are
divergent views among the members of the
Committee, and therefore, a report from the Kerala
State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre [for
short, 'the KSRSEC'] has to be called for before
disposing of Ext. P2 application to ascertain the
exact nature of the land. Accordingly, this writ
petition is filed for a direction to the
Agricultural Officer and the RDO to call for
report of the KSRSEC to ascertain the true nature
of the subject land before passing orders on Ext.
P2.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the
learned Standing Counsel for KSRSEC.
3. Rule 4 of the Rules, 2008 deals with
preparation of Data Bank. Rule 4(4d) provides
that, if any person is aggrieved by inclusion of
property in the Data Bank, he can submit an
application under Form 5 before the RDO. Under
Rule 4(6), he can also approach the LLMC to make
changes in the Data Bank. Thus, under Rules, 2008,
a person who is aggrieved by an entry in the Data
Bank can either approach the RDO or the LLMC for
appropriate correction or for removal of his land
from the Data Bank.
4. Rule 4(8) of the Rules, 2008 provides that,
on receipt of an application under Rule 4(6), the
LLMC shall consider the same and make appropriate
corrections in the Data Bank, after causing an
inspection and after perusing the satellite
picture of the property as on 12.08.2008 and after
that date.
5. Rule 4(4E)(4D) of the Rules, 2008 provides
that, on receipt of the application in Form 5, the
RDO shall call for a report from the Agricultural
Officer in the case of paddy land and that of the
Village Officer in the case of wetland. Rule 4(4F)
(4E) provides that, on receipt of the report as
above, the RDO shall, if deems necessary, verify
the contents of the Data Bank by direct inspection
or with the help of satellite images prepared by
Centre/State Scientific Technological institutions
and pass appropriate orders on the application. On
a reading of the above Rules, it can be seen that
it is not mandatory for the RDO to call for report
from the KSRSEC (nodel agency of the State
Government) in all Form 5 applications received.
If the RDO deems it appropriate, he may conduct a
local inspection or call for satellite images in
respect of the land and take appropriate decision
on the application. However, if an application is
received under Rule 4(6) by the LLMC, it has to
conduct a local inspection to find out the lie and
nature of the land and also take steps to obtain
the satellite images of the land as mandated by
Rule 4 (8).
6. In this case, Ext.P2 application in Form 5
is submitted before the RDO. This Court has, in
Ext.P3 judgment, directed the RDO to consider
Ext.P2 application in accordance with law. After
receiving the report of the Agricultural Officer,
if the RDO deems necessary, he may conduct a local
inspection or call for satellite images in respect
of the land and pass an order on Ext.P2 . This Court
cannot, at this stage, direct the RDO to call for
report of the KSRSEC. If the order is not in
accordance with law, the petitioner can challenge
the same appropriately. The writ petition does not
call for any interference at this stage and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
sp/15/02/2024
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
Exhibit P1 COPY OF LAND REVENUE RECEIPT DATED 08-
08-2023 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHENGAMANADU
Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM NO.5
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 09-10-
2023 (TOGETHER WITH RECEIPT)
Exhibit P3 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 17-11-2023 IN
WPC 38214/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P4 COPY OF LETTER DATED 05-02-2024 SENT BY
THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH
