Kerala High Court
Ullas Kumar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 29 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 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO.8158 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ULLAS KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O UNNIKRISHNAN, PARAYANCODE, VENGANUR ALATHUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678541
BY ADVS.
RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
K.V.ANTONY
VIJINA K.
ARUL MURALIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD,
(DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE UNDER THE
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT,
2008), PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ALATHUR
OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ALATHUR
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,.( LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING
COMMITTEE UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008, PIN - 678541
BY SMT.R.DEVISREE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.8158 of 2024 2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved
by Ext.P6 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 0.0203 Hectares of land comprised in Re-
Sy.No.184/17 in Block No.28 of Alathur Village,
Palakkad District by virtue of Sale Deed
No.2870/2020 of the SRO, Palakkad.
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
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
Rules, 2008 as paddy land with the remark
'fallow'. The petitioner, therefore, filed Ext.P5
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.P6 order, rejected the application stating
that as per the report of the Agricultural
Officer, the property is part of 'padasekharam'
and lying fallow and coming within the definition
of paddy field as per the Act, 2008 and that the
land need not be removed from the Data Bank.
4. The petitioner impugns 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.
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. Rule 4(4E) 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) 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
perusal of Ext.P6, it is evident that, without any
independent assessment of the nature of the
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. 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 KSRSEC, 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 KSRSEC 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."
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
treated as paddy land coming under the
definition of S.2(xii) of the Act, 2008."
In spite of the categorical declarations by
this Court in the decisions cited above, the
petitioner's application has been rejected on
untenable grounds. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P6
with a direction to the 1st respondent/RDO to
reconsider the 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 2nd respondent/Agricultural
Officer 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 judgment along with a copy of the writ
petition before the RDO for due compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of with the
above directions.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
sp/29/02/2024
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED
NO. 2870/2020 OF SRO, PALAKKAD DATED 2-
12-2020 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF
PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 08.01.2021 ISSUED TO PETITIONER
FROM-ALATHUR VILLAGE OFFICE..
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
5-10-2023 ISSUED FROM THE ALATHUR
VILLAGE OFFICE TO PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY INCLUDING ITS NEIGHBOURHOOD
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED NIL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-9-2021
IN FILE NO.RDOPKD/1843/202L/J2 PASSED
BY THE1ST RESPONDENT
