Kerala High Court
Manoj K 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.8960 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MANOJ K, AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.KITTUNNI, KAKKATHARA HOUSE, THIRUVALATHUR,
KARINKARAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678551
BY ADVS.
JACOB SEBASTIAN
WINSTON K.V
ANU JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD
HEAD POST OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE KODUMBU GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, AGRICULTURE OFFICE, KODUMBU P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678551
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KODUMBU VILLAGE, KODUMBU P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678551
BY SMT.R.DEVISREE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.8960 of 2024 2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved
by Ext.P2 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 26
Ares 40 Sq.Meters of land comprised in Sy.No.113/5
of Kodumbu Village, Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad
District.
3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid
property will not come within the ambit of paddy
land or wetland as defined under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
(for brevity, 'the Act, 2008'). However, the
property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The
petitioner filed an application in Form 5 of Rule
4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Rules,
2008'] before the RDO to remove the said land from
the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the
RDO vide Ext.P2 order stating that the
Agricultural Officer has reported that as per the
enquiry conducted by the Local Level Monitoring
Committee [LLMC], as per the report of the Kerala
State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre [for
short, 'the KSRSEC'], the subject land was paddy
land in 2010 and continues to be so and presently
the land is lying fallow and therefor4e, need not
be removed from the Data Bank.
4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition
challenging Ext.P2 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 KSRSEC and examined the same by
himself before disposing of the 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 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.P2, 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 refused to remove the
property from the Data Bank.
6. This Court has 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 as on the date of coming into
force of the Act and also whether the land is
suitable for paddy cultivation or not. In
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer
[2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court 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. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue
Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court
has held that the predominant factor for
determination while considering the Form-5
application should be whether the land which is
sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where
paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.
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 a Form 5 application has been
taken into account while passing the impugned
order. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P2 order
cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with
a direction to the 1st respondent, the RDO, to
reconsider the application in Form 5 in accordance
with law and take a decision in the matter 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 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 the judgment before
the 1st respondent for due compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of with the
above directions.
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
sp/06/03/2024
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID
RECEIPT DATED 07.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
28.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
