Kerala High Court
Sunilkumar M G 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. 8909 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUNILKUMAR M. G
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. M N GOPALAN (LATE),
MUNDAMKULANGARA HOUSE,
ATHEKAD, KOLAZHI.P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 010.
BY ADV AVANEESH KOYIKKARA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR,
CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE POST,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 003.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE POST,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 003.
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
KOLAZHY, POTTORE,
M G KAVU P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 581.
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLAZHY,
POTTORE, M G KAVU P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 581.
WP(C).No.8909 OF 2024
2
6 TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR,
TOWN HALL, WEST PALACE RD,
CHEMBUKKAV, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680 020.
7 VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE,
KOLAZHY M G KAVU P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 581.
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.8909 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
aggrieved by Ext.P5 whereby Form 5 application
submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue
Divisional Officer.
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in
possession of an extent of 27.34 Ares of land in Block
No.520, Sy.No.433/8-1 of Kolazhy Village, Thrissur
Taluk in Thrissur 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
WP(C).No.8909 OF 2024
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 rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer
vide Ext.P5 stating that the Agricultural Officer has
reported that, since the land is not fully converted
before 2008, the LLMC has recommended to retain
the subject land in the Data Bank.
4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition
challenging 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 Revenue Divisional Officer has not made any
independent assessment of the report of 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.8909 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.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 Revenue Divisional Officer
has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural
Officer 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
WP(C).No.8909 OF 2024
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
land in question or in the nearby paddy lands or that
it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the
WP(C).No.8909 OF 2024
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.
9. I find that there is total non application of
mind on the part of the RDO in issuing Ext.P5.
Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P5 with a direction to the
WP(C).No.8909 OF 2024
3rd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to
reconsider Ext.P3 application in Form 5 and take a
decision in the matter on the basis of Ext.P6 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.8909 OF 2024
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
KOLAZHY VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 25.04.2023.
EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA
BANK REGISTER PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE DATED
21.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE FORM.5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR
EXCLUDING PETITIONER'S PROPERTY FROM DATA
BANK DATED 14.09.2021.
EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURE
OFFICER/LLMC DATED 05.01.2022.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.(K.DIS) D1-
15278/2021 DATED 24.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT ALONG WITH
COVERING LETTER NO.A-172/2015/KSREC/
004935/22 DATED 06.06.2022.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
