Smt. Flicy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 6359 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 6359 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 March, 2024

Kerala High Court

Smt. Flicy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer 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. 8944 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

            SMT. FLICY
            AGED 55 YEARS
            W/O. JAMES, KALAN HOUSE,
            NELLAYI DESOM, NELLAYI P.O,
            PARAPPUKARA VILLAGE
            THRISSUR DISTRICT,
            PIN - 680 305.

            BY ADV ANU S. NAIR


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
            REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
            CIVIL STATION ROAD,
            IRINJALAKKUDA P.O,
            PIN - 680 125.
    2       THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF
            PARAPPUKARA PANCHAYATH
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
            AGRICULTURE OFFICE,
            PARAPPUKARA MAPRANAM-NANDIKARA ROAD,
            KALLIKADAVIL MUTHRATHIKARA P.O.,
            THRISSUR, PIN - 680 310.

            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.8944 OF 2024

                                  2




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

aggrieved by Ext.P5 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 19.36 Ares of land in Block

No.035, Sy. No.1058 of Parappukara Village,

Mukundapuram 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.P4 application in

Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of

Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, 'the WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024

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 the LLMC is convinced that the property

was part of padasekharam and has coconut trees and

plantains and the property was converted after 2008

and has to be retained 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.

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 WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024

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

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 WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024

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

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 WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024

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. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P5 order cannot

be sustained and I set aside the same, with a

direction to the 1st respondent, the Revenue

Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P4 application in

Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision

after considering the KSRSEC report to be obtained at

the expense of the petitioner and other relevant

factors mentioned in Rule 4 (4F), within a period of WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024

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 1st respondent for

compliance.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

directions.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

SPR WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY DATED 18.05.2023. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2307/1999 DATED 03.05.1999.