C. Haridas and Beena M v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Thrissur Municipal Corporation; Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Ayyanthole, Thrissur District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 C.HARIDAS, AGED 66 YEARS S/O C. BHASKARA MENON,'CHANDNI', MEADOWS COLONY, CHANDRA NAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678007 2 BEENA M, AGED 56 YEARS W/O C. HARIDAS, 'CHANDNI', MEADOWS COLONY, CHANDRA NAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678007** **BY ADVS. ASOK KUMAR K.P. ALEXANDER K.C. RAKESH S MENON ABDUL HAMEED RAFI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FIRST FLOOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,AYYANTHOLE KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003 3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHIBHAVAN, AYYANTHOLE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680003** ## **SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY** ## **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **01.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024 : 2 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 whereby Form 5 application submitted by them has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The petitioners are the owners in possession of an extent of 0.0277 Hectares of property comprised in Sy.No.827/1/14 of Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District, by virtue of Ext.P1 document. 3. According to the petitioners, the said property will not come within the definition of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008' for **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024 : 3 :** short). However, it has been wrongly included in Ext.P3 Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2008' for short). The petitioners therefore filed Ext.P5 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Rules, 2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The application has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the subject land is not converted before 2008 and is lying fallow. 4. The petitioners impugn 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 **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024 : 4 :** Court. 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. Rule 4(4E) of the Rules, 2008 provides that, on receipt of the application in Form 5, the RDO shall call for a report from the Agricultural Officer in the case of paddy land and that of the Village Officer in the case of wetland. Rule 4(4F) provides that, on receipt of the report as above, the RDO shall, if deems necessary, verify the contents of the Data Bank by direct inspection or with the help of satellite images prepared by Central/State Scientific institutions and Technological pass appropriate orders on the application. On a perusal **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024 : 5 :** of Ext.P6, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date of 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 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 **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024 : 6 :** 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. This Court has held 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. 8. Further, it is trite law that, merely because **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024 : 7 :** the property is lying fallow, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. In **Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others** [2014 (1) KHC 685], this Court has held that if the land suitable for paddy cultivation is uncultivated and left fallow and if the said land is included as paddy land in the village records and if the property is locked on all four sides with lands which were reclaimed before the coming into force of the Act, 2008, such land cannot be said as suitable for cultivation and may come outside the definition of paddy land. 9. In **Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others** [2020 (2) KLT 192], a Division Bench of this **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024 : 8 :** ## Court held as follows:- “22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSRSEC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSRSEC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024 : 9 :** of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008.” 10. 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 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 on only satisfaction of the said twin conditions that a land could be treated as paddy land coming under the definition of S.2(xii) of the Act, **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024 : 10 :** ## 2008.” 11. In spite of the categorical declarations by this Court in the decisions cited above, the has been on petitioners' application rejected untenable grounds. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P6 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.P5 application of the petitioner in Form 5 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 the report of the KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply before the Agricultural Officer concerned for KSRSEC report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024 : 11 :** judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with the copy of the judgment before the RDO. The writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB **WP(C) NO. 8191 OF 2024 : 12 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3004/2012 DATED 13.07.2012 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE** **Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE SYSTEM GENERATED LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.05.2023** **Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE** **Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND** **Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 04.07.2022 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **Exhibit p-6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2024**