Kerala High Court
Amina vs Sub Collector/ Revenue Divisional ... 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. 5870 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AMINA
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.KUNHEETHU, ERAVATHRA THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE,
MULAYANKAVU POST, KULUKKALLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 679337
BY ADVS.
R.SREEHARI
HAMZA A.V.
VIGNESH S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB COLLECTOR/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OTTAPALAM, OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
LAND AND WET LAND ACT,2008), KULUKKALLUR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT , REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR -AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN - KULUKKALLUR, KULUKKALLUR POST,
PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679337
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN - KULUKKALLUR, KULUKKALLUR POST, PATTAMBI
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679337
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
KULUKKALLUR VILLAGE, KULUKKALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE ,
KULUKKALLUR POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679337
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG JUNCTION
POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.,
W.P (C) No.5870 of 2024
2
PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.R.DEVI SHRI, GP
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.5870 of 2024
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by
Ext.P6 whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has
been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession
of 2.83 Ares (0.0283 Hectors) of land in Re-Survey
Nos.444/11-1 (Re.Sy.Block No.37) in Kulukkallur Village in
Pattambi Taluk, Palakkad District.
3. According to the petitioner, the said property will
not come within the definition of paddy land or wet land.
However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank
prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner, therefore, filed an
application in Form 5 under the provisions of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2008') to remove the
property from the Data Bank. The application has been
rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the
Agricultural Officer, referring to KSRSEC report has reported
that the land was not converted before 2008 and that in
2007 and in 2008 the land was lying as fallow.
4. The petitioner impugnes Ext.P6 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 Agricultural Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer
have misinterpreted the report from the Kerala State
Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (for short 'the
KSRSEC').
5. 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.P6, it is evident that, without any
independent assessment of the nature of property as on the
coming into force of the Act 2008, the Revenue Divisional
Officer has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural
Officer to refuse to remove the property from the Data
Bank.
6. 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.
7. Further, it is trite law that, merely because the
land is lying fallow, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy
land in contemplation of Act, 2008.
8. In Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
(2023 (2) KLT 386), this Court held as follows:-
"Going by the definition in S.2(xii) of "paddy land" in the
Act, 2008, to bring in a land within the definition of
paddy land, it should be suitable for paddy cultivation,
but uncultivated and left fallow. Just for the reason that
the property is left fallow, the land cannot be brought
within the definition of paddy land but the Revenue
Divisional Officer should be satisfied that the land is
suitable for paddy cultivation and left fallow and
therefore only on satisfaction of the said twin conditions
that a land could be referred as paddy land coming
under the definition of S.2(xii) of the Act, 2008."
10. In spite of the 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, who recommended not to remove
the land from the Data Bank. I find that there is total non
application of mind on the part of the RDO while
interpreting the report of the Agricultural Officer as well as
the KSRSEC. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P6 with a direction
to the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to
reconsider application of the petitioner in Form No.5 and
take a decision in the matter on the basis of Ext.P5 KSRSEC
report and the observation of this Court and the binding
precedents within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall
produce a copy of this writ petition along with a certified
copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for
compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above
directions.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
bng
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5870/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 06/07/2021 ISSUED FROM THE
KULUKKALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF
THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2021-2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 04/07/2019 WITH NO.41169049,
ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FROM
THE KULUKKALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
18/11/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
IN FORM NO.5 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION
OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES,2008
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT, WITH RESPECT TO THE
RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE LOCAL LEVEL
MONITORING COMMITTEE
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON LAND USE
CHANGE WITH NO.A-
172/2015/KSREC/005686/22 ALONG WITH A
COVERING LETTER DATED 08/12/2022
FORWARDED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT WITH FILE NO.G1-
67/2023/K-DIS DATED 28/01/2023
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED
AS 2023 (4) KHC 524 (MURALEEDHARAN
NAIR.R -VS- REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER)
