Alley George v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Mini Civil Station, Muvattupuzha; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan Thirumarady; Village Officer, Village Office Thirumarady

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO.2288 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ALLEY GEORGE, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.GEORGE K.JOHN, KOCHERIL (VADAKKEKUTTIKKATTIL) HOUSE, MANNATHOOR P.O, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686667 ``` ``` BY ADV.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686669`** - **`2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN THIRUMARADY, THIRUMARADY P O, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686662`** - **`3 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE THIRUMARADY, THIRUMARADY P O, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686662`** ``` SMT.R.DEVISREE, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.2288 of 2024 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Petitioner is the owner in possession of 8.9 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.423/9B2 of Thirumarady Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, obtained by virtue of Ext.P1 settlement deed. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property is recorded as ‘nilam’ in the BTR and ‘converted land’ in Ext.P2 Data Bank. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 application in Form 5 before the 1[st] respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer [RDO], and the RDO rejected the same by Ext.P4 order. In Ext.P4 it is stated that as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the property was converted after 2008 and the petitioner was issued with stop memo and therefore, the LLMC has recommended not to exclude the property from the Data Bank. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition ``` W.P.(C) No.2288 of 2024 3 ``` 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 RDO should have called for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, Thiruvananthapuram [for short, ‘the KSRSEC’] to ascertain the status of the land as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. ``` ``` 3. 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. On a perusal of Ext.P4, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of the as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, ``` W.P.(C) No.2288 of 2024 4 ``` the RDO has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 4. 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 on the date of coming into force of the Act 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.2288 of 2024 5 ``` 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 consideration 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. ``` W.P.(C) No.2288 of 2024 6 ``` In spite of the above 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, which recommended not to remove the land from the data bank. Accordingly I find that Ext.P4 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, to reconsider Ext.P3 application in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after obtaining KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the report of the KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply before the Agricultural Officer concerned for KSRSEC report within a period of two ``` W.P.(C) No.2288 of 2024 7 ``` weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` ``` The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` ``` sp/06/02/2024 ``` W.P.(C) No.2288 of 2024 8 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 1467/2006 DATED 17/07/2006 OF SRO KOOTHATTUKULAM ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO. 21/2022/730762 DATED 06/08/2022 Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3975/2023 DATED 27/04/2023 Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO BEARING NO. 3/18 DATED 03/10/2018 ```