Kerala High Court
Chandran A.R vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 February, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO.6127 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
CHANDRAN A.R
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O.AYYAPPAN, ALIYATH HOUSE, KAKKOOTH ,
PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADV.RAVI KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PERINTHALMANNA, SHORNUR-PERINTHALMANNA ROAD,
SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTALMANNA, KERALA, PIN - 679322
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PERINTAHALMANNA VILLAGE, OFFICE OF PERINTAHALMANNA
VILLAGE, PERINTAHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321
3 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695033
BY SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC, KSREC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.6127 of 2024 2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved
by Ext.P5 order whereby Form 5 application
submitted by him has been rejected by the 1 st
respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer [RDO].
2. Petitioner is the owner in possession of an
extent of 20.64 Ares of land comprised in
Sy.No.54/8-8 in Block No.5 of Perinthalmanna
Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram
District.
3. According to the petitioner, the said
property will not come within the definition of
paddy land or wetland. 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
Ext.P1 application in Form 5 under the provisions
of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Act, 2008']
to remove the said property from the Data Bank.
The RDO, by Ext.P5 order, rejected the application
stating that on the basis of the report of the
Agricultural Officer that the property is not
converted before 2008 and there are no trees and
the property is lying fallow and is suitable for
paddy cultivation and cannot be removed from the
Data Bank.
4. The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 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 [for
short, 'the KSRSEC'] as directed by this Court in
Ext.P4 judgment dated 26.05.2023 in WP(C) No.16915
of 2023 to ascertain the status of the land as on
12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the
Act, 2008.
5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of
a property as paddy land or wetland 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.P5, it is evident that, without any
independent assessment of the nature of property
as on the date of coming into force of the Act,
2008, the RDO 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 property is lying fallow, it cannot be
termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation
of Act, 2008.
8. In Mather Nagar Residents Association and
Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and
Others [2020 (2) KLT 192], a Division Bench of
this Court held as follows:
"22. Going by the definition of
wetland, we are of the view that, in
order to treat a particular land as
wetland, it should have the
characteristic features and requirement
as is provided under the Act, 2008. It is
clear from the report submitted by the
Sub Collector before the Apex Court as
well as report of KSREC, the nodal agency
of State Government, that the properties
in question is a fallow land. Fallow land
is never treated as wetland in accordance
with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is
also significant to note that from the
definition of wetland under Act, 2008,
paddy land and rivers are excluded. The
report submitted by the KSREC is not
disputed by the Residents Association.
Merely because the property is lying
fallow and water gets logged during rainy
season or otherwise due to the low lying
nature of the property, it cannot be
termed as wetland or paddy land in
contemplation of Act, 2008."
9. In Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
[2023 (2) KLT 386], this Court held that just for
the reason that the property is left fallow, the
land cannot be brought within the definition of
paddy land. This Court observed 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
treated as paddy land coming under the
definition of S.2(xii) of the Act, 2008."
In spite of the above categorical declarations
by this Court in the decisions cited above, the
petitioner's application has been rejected on
untenable grounds. Accordingly, I find that
Ext.P5 order cannot be sustained and I set aside
the same, with a direction to the 1 st respondent/
RDO to reconsider Ext.P1 application of the
petitioner in Form No.5 in accordance with law and
take a decision in the matter after obtaining the
KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner,
within a period of two months from the date of
receipt 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 petitioner shall
produce a copy of this writ petition, along with a
copy of the judgment, before the 1st respondent/RDO
for due compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of with the
above directions.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
sp/17/02/2024
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.4.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED 21.4.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.7.2021
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP© 16915
OF 2023 DATED 26.5.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5.6.2023
