Kerala High Court
Suresh 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.8143 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SURESH KUMAR, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.LATE GOPIKUTTAN PILLAI, GEETHANJALI,
PERUNNA WEST, CHANGANASSERY, PANACHIKAVU,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, HARIKUMAR R S/O RAMAN PILLAI,
RESIDING AT NEELAMBARAI, THARAVATHPADI,
KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004
BY ADVS.
RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
MAYA C.P.
A.P.BEELAMMA
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
KODUMBU OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KODUMBU
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, (LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING
COMMITTEE UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008), PIN - 678551
BY SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY
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.8143 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 8 Ares 10 Sq.Meters of land comprised in
Sy.No.160/27 in Block No.46 of Kodumbu Village,
Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad District by virtue of
Ext.P1 Sale Deed.
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 [for brevity, 'the Rules']. 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 the
Agricultural Officer has reported that the
property is not converted and is lying fallow and
is suitable for paddy cultivation and 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. 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'] 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. 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 Central/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 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."
8. 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 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.P6 order cannot be sustained and I set aside
the same, with a direction to the 1 st respondent/
RDO to reconsider Ext.P5 application of the
petitioner in Form No.5 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 judgment along with a
copy of the writ petition before the 1 st respondent
for due compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of with the
above directions.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
sp/01/03/2024
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED
NO.1545/2007 OF SRO, PALAKKAD DATED 21-
2-2007 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 30-1-2023 ISSUED TO
PETITIONER FROM KODUMBU VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 16-1-2023 ISSUED FROM THE KODUMBU
VILLAGE OFFICE TO PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY INCLUDING ITS NEIGHBOURHOOD
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 30-3-2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
1 ST RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3-1-2024
IN FILE NO.10475/2023 PASSED BY THE
1 ST RESPONDENT
