Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of; Ext.P6 set aside; ma...

Benji Varghese and Others v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Mattoor Village Office and Agricultural Officer

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.37395 of 2023
Neutral Citation:null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • The Hon. Justice Viju Abraham
Judgment Date
2023-11-13
Court Decision / Holding
Ext.P6 is set aside; the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the Form-5 application. If the petitioner submits an application seeking a KSRSEC Report, with the prescribed fee within two weeks, the RDO shall pass a fresh Form-5 order within three months from the date of receipt of the KSRSEC Report, after considering the report and the relevant factors under Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, including a site inspection. The petitioner may file argument notes citing the judgments relied on, and the 1st respondent shall consider those notes and the judgments cited in arriving at the final decision.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P6 set aside; matter remanded with directions to reconsider Form-5, obtain KSRSEC report if sought, and decide within three months after considering the report and Rule 4(4f) of the Rules; allow argument notes and references to cited judgments.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Benji Varghese
  • Sunil Thomas
  • Bindu

Respondents

  • Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Fort Kochi, Ernakulam
  • Village Officer, Mattoor Village Office, Ernakulam
  • Agricultural Officer, Agriculture Office, Mattoor, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. M.S. Shamla

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.37395 of 2023 approach this Court challenging Ext.P6, the rejection of Form-5 filed by them for removal of their land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, on the ground that Ext.P4 (Form-5) was declined solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report and without independent consideration by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The petitioners own about 10 Ares 29 Square Meters of land in survey No.225/6-2, Mattoor Village, Aluva Taluk. The judgment surveys a line of precedents, noting that the Data Bank should pertain to cultivable paddy land and wetlands as applicable, and that the status as of dates relevant to the Rules (12.08.2008 or 24.12.2008, depending on case) matters for inclusion or exclusion from the Data Bank. It emphasizes that the RDO must independently assess land status, and should not rely solely on LLMC’s prior decision when evaluating a Form-5 application; if needed, satellite data (KSRSEC) and other materials should be utilized. The court cites Salim C.K. and Others, Lalu P.S., Joy, Arthasasthra Ventures, Muraleedharan Nair, and Aparna Sasi Menon to underscore the importance of land use status, paddy viability, and proper evidentiary review. Ultimately, Ext.P6 is set aside, and the matter is remanded with directions to obtain a KSRSEC report, afford two weeks to apply, and decide within three months after considering the report and Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, with opportunity for argument notes and citations to the judgments.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that Ext.P6 relies solely on the LLMC’s decision to not remove the land from the Data Bank and lacks independent evaluation by the Revenue Divisional Officer. They argued that removal from the Data Bank requires a fresh, independent assessment of land status, including whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation and whether removal would adversely affect nearby paddy lands or wetlands. They urged reliance on data and scientific materials (including KSRSEC reports) and cited established judgments (Salim C.K., Lalu P.S., Joy, Arthasasthra Ventures, Muraleedharan Nair, Aparna Sasi Menon) to assert that the data bank’s scope and Form-5 considerations demand a thorough, evidence-based review, with site inspection and opportunity to argue, leading to a fresh Form-5 decision within a reasoned framework.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the LLMC’s stance, arguing that the LLMC decision appropriately informs the Data Bank status and that Ext.P6 was grounded in the LLMC judgment. They maintained that the RDO’s prior assessment should be consistent with LLMC guidance and that any challenges to inclusion/exclusion must be anchored in credible evidence and statutory parameters, including the Rules under the 2008 Act. They did not present a counter narrative beyond relying on the LLMC decision as the basis for the original Form-5 rejection.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others2017 (1) KHC 394PositiveCited as controlling authority for data bank scope and the need for independent consideration in Form-5.
Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala2020 (5) KHC 490PositiveSupports data bank definition and the timing of entries under Act.
Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector2021 (1) KLT 433PositiveEmphasizes land character and fitness as of 12.08.2008 for inclusion/exclusion.
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222PositiveUnderscores reliance on scientific data to assess Form-5 status.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer2023 (4) KLT 270PositiveRequires independent assessment rather than merely citing LLMC's stance.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer2023 (5) KLT 432PositiveStresses predominant factor being feasibility of paddy cultivation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Benji Varghese and Others v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Mattoor Village Office and Agricultural Officer and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **W.P.(C) No.37395 of 2023 1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 37395 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 BENJI VARGHESE AGED 50 YEARS S/O VARGHESE, PALATTY HOUSE, VAPALASSERY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572 2 SUNIL THOMAS AGED 52 YEARS S/O THOMAS, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, VAPPALASSERY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572 3 BINDU AGED 50 YEARS /O. SUNIL, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, VAPPALASSERY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572 BY ADV M.S.SHAMLA ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MATTOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574 3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AGRICULTURE OFFICE, MATTOOR, ERNAKLAM, PIN - 683574 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP - RIYAL DEVASSY ## **W.P.(C) No.37395 of 2023 2** THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **W.P.(C) No.37395 of 2023 3** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** ----------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No.37395 of 2023** --------------------------------- **Dated this the 13[th] day of of November, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P6 order, whereby Ext.P4, Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the 1[st] respondent relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer and that there is no independent consideration by the 1[st] respondent. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of an extent of 10 Ares 29 Square meters of land comprised in survey No.225/6-2 of Mattoor Village in Aluva Taluk. ## 3. This Court in _**Salim C.K. and Another v.**_ _**State of Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394]**_ has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in _**Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala[2020 (5)**_ ## **W.P.(C) No.37395 of 2023 4** _**KHC 490]**_ has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In _**Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector[2021 (1) KLT 433]**_ it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in _**Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala[2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222]**_ has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. This court in _**Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (4) KLT 270]**_ has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his ## **W.P.(C) No.37395 of 2023 5** 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. Further, this Court in _**Aparna**_ ## _**Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (5)**_ _**KLT 432]**_ 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. 4. In spite of these categorical declaration by this Court in a catena of judgments as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioner ## **W.P.(C) No.37395 of 2023 6** has been rejected solely relying on the decision of the LLMC that not to remove the paddy land from the data bank. 5. In view of the above, Ext.P6 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 1[st] respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner submits an application to the Agricultural Officer concerned seeking to obtain KSRSEC Report, paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass an order afresh in the Form-5 application within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the KSRSEC Report and take a final decision in the matter after considering the report as well as the relevant factors stipulated in Rule 4 (4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and after conducting a site inspection. Petitioner will be free to file argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him to substantiate his contentions and the 1[st] respondent RDO while ## **W.P.(C) No.37395 of 2023 7** reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the findings of this Court in the judgments cited (supra) and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by him. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** pm ## **W.P.(C) No.37395 of 2023 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37395/2023** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 - TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 3064/2012 DATED 28.9.2012 OF SREEMOOLANAGARAM SRO Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2022-2023 NO. KL07040602710/2022 DATED27.4.2022 - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 BEARING NO. 2/2022/945687 DATED 16.9.2022 - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.2.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 6503/2023 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING FILE NO. 6518/2023 DATED 21.9.2023 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING STANDING TREES MORE THAN 30 YEARS OLD IN THE PROPERTY