Kerala High Court
Priya Shiva Shankar Nair vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 8869 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PRIYA SHIVA SHANKAR NAIR
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. SHIVA SHANKAR BHASKARAN NAIR,
E 28, IIT QUARTERS, IIT GUWAHATI,
ASSAM, PIN - 781 039.
BY ADVS.
K.V.JAYADEEP MENON
T.P.RAMESH (THENGUMPILLIL)
P.KRISHNAPRIYA
HARIPRASAD K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682 030.
3 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE FORT KOCHI,
FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682 001.
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE FORT KOCHI,
FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682 001.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
NADAMA VILLAGE, POST OFFICE ROAD,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682 301.
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024
2
KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIPUNITHURA,
MINI CIVIL STATION, MAIN ROAD,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682 301.
7 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIPUNITHURA,
MINI CIVIL STATION,
MAIN ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682 301.
SMT.R.DEVI SHRI - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
aggrieved by Ext.P4 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 an extent of 02.00 Ares of land in Block
No.123, Re.Sy. No.24/7 of Nadama Village,
Kanayannoor Taluk in Ernakulam District.
3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid
property will not come within the ambit of paddy land
or wet land as defined under the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act, 2008'). However, it is stated
that the property is wrongly included in the Data
Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 application in Form
5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, 'the Rules')
before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the
WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024
said land from the Data Bank. The same has been
rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P4
stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that
the property is seen as 'Nilam' and the LLMC has
recommended not to remove the subject land from
the Data Bank.
4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition
challenging Ext.P4 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 Revenue Divisional Officer should have called
for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing
and Environment Centre (for short, the KSRSEC')
before disposing of Form 5 application to ascertain
the exact nature 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 wet land is as to the nature
WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024
of the property as on the date of coming into force of
the Act, 2008. Rule 4 (4E) of the Rules 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.P4, 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 Revenue Divisional Officer
has relied upon the report of the Agricultural Officer
and LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the
Data Bank.
6. This Court had held in the decision in
WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of
Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] that, the Revenue
Divisional Officer must, while considering an
application for removal of a property from the Data
Bank consider the question whether the land was a
paddy land on the date of coming into force of the
Act, 2008 and also whether the land is suitable for
paddy cultivation or not. 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 the 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
WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024
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. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue
Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has
held that the predominant factor for consideration
while considering Form 5 application should be
whether the land which is sought to be excluded from
the Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is
possible and feasible.
8. 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. None of the parameters for consideration of
Form 5 application has been taken into account while
passing the impugned order.
WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024
9. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P4 order cannot
be sustained and I set aside the same, with a
direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider Ext.P2
application in Form 5 in accordance with law and take
a decision after considering the KSRSEC report which
shall be obtained at the expense of the petitioner,
and other relevant factors mentioned in Rule 4(4F),
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 the writ petition along with a
copy of this judgment before the 4 th respondent for
compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above
directions.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SPR
WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 09.01.2024 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE
OFFICE NADAMA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER
FORM 5 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES, 2008 DATED
NIL.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
THRIPUNITHURA DATED 25.03.2022.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.03.2023.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT 23.02.2024
IN WP (C) NO.3747 OF 2024 OF THE
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
