Annie Steephen v. Village Officer, Nedumbassery; Nedumbassery Grama Panchayath, Nedumbassery; Local Level Monitoring Committee (Agricultural Officer) Nedumbassery; Agricultural Officer, Nedumbassery Krishibhavan; Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing & Environment Centre

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 10236 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` ANNIES STEEPHEN, AGED 65 YEARS W/O. STEPHEN @ ESTHAPANNU, MULAVARICKAL HOUSE, PIRAROOR, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683574 BY ADVS. P.M.ARUN DAS BIBIN VARGHESE EBIN V.Y. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, NEDUMBASSERY , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683585` - `2 THE SECRETARY, NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, NEDUMBASSERY , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683585` - `3 THE CONVENER/AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OFFICE, NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, NEDUMBASSERY , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683585` - `4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER NEDUMBASSERY KRISHIBHAVAN, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683585` - `5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, FORT KOCHI,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001` - `6 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING & ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, C BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN THIRUVANANPURAM, PIN - 695033` 2 W.P(C).10236/2024 ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SMT.DEVI SHRI, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P(C).10236/2024 3 # **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.10236 of 2024** **------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command respondent No.5 to set aside the order in Forms application by the petitioner and reconsider the Form.5 application and act upon the application given by the petitioner and also perform the duties of other respondents on the file of petitioner within a time frame petitioner also seek for a permission to make use of the property of the petitioner for other purposes by invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order by an application before the competent authority within a time frame; B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command the 1[st] , 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents to re consider and reexamine the land and all relevant documents of the land and act upon the application given by the petitioner and also perform the duties of other respondents on the W.P(C).10236/2024 4 file of petitioner within a time frame and also to remove the property of petitioner from the data bank as wet land by 1[st] , 3[rd] 4[th] and 5[th] respondents and change the status of property of petitioner from "nilam" to "purayidom" in all revenue records by the respondents within a time frame: C. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command respondents to reconsider the Form.5 application of the petitioner and correct the mistake in the data bank prepared by 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents of the petitioner by reconsidering it. D. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command respondents to correct the mistake in revenue records of the property of the petitioner and change the status of the property of the petitioner from "nilam" to "purayidom"; E. To grant any other further or consequential reliefs, including any interim reliefs, as may be prayed for and deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court, and F. To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents G. To allow this Writ Petition with costs. _[SIC]_ W.P(C).10236/2024 5 2. The petitioner purchased the property in Block No.09, in Re.sy.No.105/5-2 having an extent of 1.97 Ares respectively situated in the limits of Nedumbassery village, Aluva Taluk is the submission. This property was purchased by the petitioner by two sale deeds. The property of the petitioner was shown as wet land in the data bank prepared by the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents. In all revenue records, this property is recorded as ‘nilam’. According to the petitioner, this property in its usage and in its origin is a purayidam. This land was converted prior to the introduction of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 [for short, ‘the Act 2008’] is the submission. This land was converted as garden land prior to the introduction of the Act 2008 is the further submission. It is submitted that, all the adjacent property were converted lands. It is also submitted that, one of the adjacent property was owned by her husband and son and this property was already converted and they also got permission to make use of the property for other purposes by invoking Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. It is submitted that the above W.P(C).10236/2024 6 application was allowed and a commercial building was already constructed. But, when the petitioner submitted a Form 5 application, the same is rejected as per ext.P5. Aggrieved by Exts.P5, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 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.P5 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 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 W.P(C).10236/2024 7 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. 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 W.P(C).10236/2024 8 contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 5[th ] respondent while passing the order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) Ext.P5 order is set aside. b) The 5[th] 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. c) 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 needful to obtain the same, in accordance with law. If KSREC report is available, the same will be considered by the 5[th ] 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 KSREC. W.P(C).10236/2024 9 d) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 5[th] respondent for compliance. Sd/- **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Sbna/ W.P(C).10236/2024 10 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10236/2024` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` Exhibit P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FROM THE NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, OFFICE DATED 06.11.2023 ``` ``` Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED HAVING NO. 1096/2020 DATED 05/06/2020 OF CHENGAMANADU SUB REGISTER OFFICE Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEEDS HAVING NO.2083/2020 DATED 24/08/2020 OF CHENGAMANADU SUB REGISTER OFFICE ``` ``` Exhibit P4THE COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IN DATA BANK ``` ``` Exhibit P5THE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 09/09/2022 IN FORM.5 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER ``` ``` Exhibit P6THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO. 13278/2017 DATED 30-10-2017 Exhibit P7THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 458/2000 DATED27/01/20002000OFTHE CHENGAMANADU REGISTRAR OFFICE ```