Abdul Latheef v. District Collector, Ernakulam; Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; Tahsildar, Aluva; Village Officer, Chengamanadu; Agriculture Officer, Chengamanadu; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 10130 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **ABDUL LATHEEF AGED 63 YEARS** **MANAGING DIRECTOR AND REPRESENTING HERCULES HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD., S/O. MEERA SAHIB, PUTHANVILA HOUSE CHENGAMANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683578** **BY ADVS. AMJATHA D.A. MUHASIN K.M. FARHANA K.H.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K B JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001** - **3 THE TAHSILDAR ALUVA TALUK OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE OFFICE, CHENGAMANADU, KUNNUMPURAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683102** - **5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER CHENGAMANADU KRISHI BHAVAN, CHENGAMANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683578** - **6 THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 BY ADV.** **SMT.DEVI SHRI.R, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO.10130 OF 2024 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.10130 of 2024 ------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext P3 order and quash the same. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider Ext P2 application and pass orders afresh after obtaining a report from the 6[th] respondent, KSREC with regard to the nature of the property as on 2008. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 6[th] respondent to file a report before the 2[nd] and 5[th] respondent with regard to nature and lie of the petitioner’s property in 2008. WP(C) NO.10130 OF 2024 3 iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents. v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” _[SIC]_ 2. The petitioner filed a Form - 5 application before the 2[nd] respondent for removing his property from the data bank. The 2[nd] respondent after obtaining a report from the 5[th] respondent passed Ext.P3 order rejecting the petitioner's application. The reason stated in Ext.P3 order for rejecting the Form 5 application is that the LLMC has decided to retain the property in the data bank vide decision No.14 dated 20.10.2023 as there are no trees in the petitioner's property and the same is seen as 'nilam'. According to the petitioner, the property was reclaimed much before the enactment of the Kerla Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner's WP(C) NO.10130 OF 2024 4 application was rejected without obtaining scientific report from the KSREC with respect to nature of the petitioner's property as on 2008 is the submission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2[nd] respondent rejected the Form – 5 application by issuing a cryptic non-speaking order. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 is not a speaking order. Except relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the contention of the petitioner is not adverted while passing Ext.P3 order. In _**Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court observed that, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that WP(C) NO.10130 OF 2024 5 Local Level Monitoring Committee has decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank. 5. 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 the Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question and 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. 6. In _**Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2023 (5) KLT 432], this Court observed 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 or feasible. WP(C) NO.10130 OF 2024 6 7. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is passed in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not applied his mind and simply accepted the report. It is also submitted that, the KSREC report is not properly considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The contention of the petitioner is that the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 is not ascertained properly as per scientific process. 8. After going through the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 2[nd] respondent while passing the order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside. WP(C) NO.10130 OF 2024 7 Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) Ext.P3 order is set aside. ii) The 2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iii) The petitioner is free to submit an application before the appropriate authority for getting the KSREC report within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and if such an application is filed, the authority concerned will do the WP(C) NO.10130 OF 2024 8 needful to obtain the same, in accordance with law. If KSREC report is available, the same will be considered by the 2[nd] respondent. If fresh KSREC report is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to consider the Form 5 application only within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report from the KSREC. iv) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 2[nd] respondent for compliance. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO.10130 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10130/2024** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.05.2022 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06.03.2023 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**