Kerala High Court

Chippy.R.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. 8887 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

           CHIPPY.R.NAIR
           AGED 28 YEARS
           D/O. RAJEEVAN NAIR,
           CHATHANANICKAL HOUSE,
           MANAKKAD.P.O, THODUPUZHA,
           IDUKKI DISTRICT,
           PIN - 685 608.

           BY ADV AVANEESH KOYIKKARA


RESPONDENTS:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
           REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
           GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
           PIN - 695 001.
    2      DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI
           COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI,
           KUYILIMALA, PAINAV.P.O,
           IDUKKI, PIN - 685 603.
    3      REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
           REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
           IDUKKI, PARAKKUNNAM,
           VIDYUT NAGAR,
           IDUKKI, PIN - 685 603.
    4      KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
           CENTER, 1ST FLOOR,
           VIKAS BHAVAN,
           NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
           UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
           PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
           REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
           PIN - 695 033.
    5      LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
           REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER
           AGRICULTURAL OFFICE,
           KRISHI BHAVAN, MANAKKAD,
           PUTHUPARIYARAM P.O., IDUKKI,
           PIN - 686 508.
 WP(C).No.8887 OF 2024

                                        2

         6          AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
                    KRISHI BHAVAN, MANAKKAD,
                    PUTHUPARIYARAM P.O., IDUKKI,
                    PIN - 686 508.

                    SMT.R.DEVI SHRI - GP
                    SRI. VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL - SC



             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.8887 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 6.47 Ares of land in Block

No.010, Sy.No.416/7-2-1 of Manakkad Village,

Thodupuzha Taluk in Idukki 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.P3 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

said land from the Data Bank. The same has been WP(C).No.8887 OF 2024

rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P4

stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that

as per the KSRSEC report, during 2008, there were

crops in the subject land and the LLMC has opined

that there were paddy cultivation in the subject land

and in the nearby areas during 2008 and there are no

trees in the property and there are water chals across

the property and water logged and the LLMC has

recommended to retain the property in 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 has not himself

examined the KSRSEC report to ascertain the exact

nature of the land as on 12.08.2008, the date of

coming into force of the Act, 2008, but relied on the WP(C).No.8887 OF 2024

version of the Agricultural Officer.

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. 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 WP(C).No.8887 OF 2024

and LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the

Data Bank.

6. This Court had held in the decision in

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 WP(C).No.8887 OF 2024

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. 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 WP(C).No.8887 OF 2024

Bank. None of the parameters for consideration of

Form 5 application has been taken into account while

passing the impugned order.

9. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P4 order cannot

be sustained and I set aside the same, with a

direction to the 3rd respondent, the Revenue

Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P3 application in

Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision

after considering 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 the writ petition along with a copy

of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for

compliance.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

directions.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR WP(C).No.8887 OF 2024

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MANAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 14.07.2022. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA BANK PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE DATED 23.02.2012. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 11.05.2022.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE NO: