Amina v. Sub Collector / Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottapalam & Local Level Monitoring Committee (Kulukkallur) & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 5870 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** AMINA AGED 46 YEARS W/O.KUNHEETHU, ERAVATHRA THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, MULAYANKAVU POST, KULUKKALLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679337 BY ADVS. R.SREEHARI HAMZA A.V. VIGNESH S. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 SUB COLLECTOR/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OTTAPALAM, OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101 2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT,2008), KULUKKALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT , REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR -AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN - KULUKKALLUR, KULUKKALLUR POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679337 3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN - KULUKKALLUR, KULUKKALLUR POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679337 4 VILLAGE OFFICER KULUKKALLUR VILLAGE, KULUKKALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE , KULUKKALLUR POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679337 5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG JUNCTION POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR., 2 W.P (C) No.5870 of 2024 PIN - 695033 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT.R.DEVI SHRI, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.5870 of 2024 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 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 2.83 Ares (0.0283 Hectors) of land in Re-Survey Nos.444/11-1 (Re.Sy.Block No.37) in Kulukkallur Village in Pattambi Taluk, Palakkad District. 3. According to the petitioner, the said property will not come within the definition of paddy land or wet land. However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application in Form 5 under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2008') to remove the property from the Data Bank. The application has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the Agricultural Officer, referring to KSRSEC report has reported W.P (C) No.5870 of 2024 4 that the land was not converted before 2008 and that in 2007 and in 2008 the land was lying as fallow. 4. The petitioner impugnes Ext.P6 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 Agricultural Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer have misinterpreted the report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (for short 'the KSRSEC'). 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. On a perusal of Ext.P6, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the 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 in **Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue** W.P (C) No.5870 of 2024 5 **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 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. Further, it is trite law that, merely because the land is lying fallow, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. 8. In _**Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer,**_ ## _**(2023 (2) KLT 386),**_ this Court held as follows:- _“Going by the definition in S.2(xii) of “paddy land” in the Act, 2008, to bring in a land within the definition of_ W.P (C) No.5870 of 2024 6 _paddy land, it should be suitable for paddy cultivation, but uncultivated and left fallow. Just for the reason that the property is left fallow, the land cannot be brought within the definition of paddy land but the Revenue Divisional Officer should be satisfied that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation and left fallow and therefore only on satisfaction of the said twin conditions that a land could be referred as paddy land coming under the definition of S.2(xii) of the Act, 2008.”_ 10. 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. I find that there is total non application of mind on the part of the RDO while interpreting the report of the Agricultural Officer as well as the KSRSEC. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P6 with a direction to the 2[nd] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider application of the petitioner in Form No.5 and take a decision in the matter on the basis of Ext.P5 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 W.P (C) No.5870 of 2024 **==> picture [8 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** produce a copy of this writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** bng W.P (C) No.5870 of 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5870/2024** |PETITIONER|EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT| ||DATED 06/07/2021 ISSUED FROM THE| ||KULUKKALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF| ||THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2021-2022| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE| ||DATED 04/07/2019 WITH NO.41169049,| ||ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FROM| ||THE KULUKKALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED| ||18/11/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| ||IN FORM NO.5 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION| ||OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES,2008| ||BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY| ||THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT, WITH RESPECT TO THE| ||RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE LOCAL LEVEL| ||MONITORING COMMITTEE| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON LAND USE| ||CHANGE WITH NO.A-| ||172/2015/KSREC/005686/22 ALONG WITH A| ||COVERING LETTER DATED 08/12/2022| ||FORWARDED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE| ||3RD RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE| ||1ST RESPONDENT WITH FILE NO.G1-| ||67/2023/K-DIS DATED 28/01/2023| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE| ||HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED| ||AS 2023 (4) KHC 524 (MURALEEDHARAN| ||NAIR.R -VS- REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER)|