High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-26Writ petition disposed of with Ext. P6 set asid...

Chandran P v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.29041 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Hon. Mr. Justice Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-02-26
Court Decision / Holding: Ext. P6 cannot stand. The court sets aside Ext. P6 and directs the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the Form 5 application in Form 5 in accordance with law, based on the KSRSEC report, and to decide within two months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner must furnish a copy of the writ petition together with the judgment when presenting before the RDO.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with Ext. P6 set aside; RDO to reconsider Form 5 in light of KSRSEC report within two months; ensure independent assessment and compliance with law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chandran P

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
Tahsildar Taluk Office, Alathur
Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Alathur
Alathur Grama Panchayat, Alathur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.R. Venkatesh
• Lakshmi Meenakshi
• P.R.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. E.G. Gordon, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Chandran P, the petitioner, challenges Ext. P6, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting his Form 5 application for removal of two parcels of land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and its Rules. The petitioner claims the property—0.0668 hectares in Survey No. 631/12 and 0.1335 hectares in Survey No. 631/17 in Alathur Taluk, Palakkad—does not constitute paddy land or wet land as defined by the Act, and that it was wrongly included in the Data Bank. Ext. P6 relies solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report; the RDO did not independently assess whether the land was paddy land as of the Act’s commencement. The Rules require the RDO to obtain reports (Rule 4(4E)) and, if needed, verify the Data Bank contents through inspection or satellite imagery (Rule 4(4F)). The court recalls prior rulings mandating independent assessment of land status and consideration of whether removal would adversely affect paddy cultivation and wetlands. Citing Arthasasthra Ventures, Muraleedharan Nair, and Aparna Sasi Menon, the court emphasizes the need for an objective evaluation of land’s status and feasibility for paddy cultivation, rather than blind reliance on officers’ reports. The writ petition is allowed, Ext. P6 is set aside, and the RDO is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application in light of the KSRSEC report within two months, with the petitioner delivering copies of the petition and judgment to the RDO.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 4(4E)Rule 4(4F)Rule 4(d)Form 5

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Independent assessment by the Revenue Divisional Officer is required while considering Form-5 applications under the Act, rather than relying solely on reports from Agricultural Officers.
Predominant factor for Form-5 consideration is whether the land sought to be excluded from the Data Bank is suitable for paddy cultivation and feasible for such cultivation as of the date of the Act’s coming into force.
Removal from the Data Bank must be supported by evidence that removal will not adversely affect paddy cultivation or sustenance of wetlands; simply following LLMC’s decision is insufficient without independent verification.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P6 is vitiated by non-application of mind and is contrary to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the accompanying Rules. The land in question is not shown to be paddy land or wet land as of the Act’s commencement, and the Data Bank’s inclusion is erroneous. The RDO’s reliance on the Agricultural Officer’s report without independent verification violates statutory requirements and precedents (Arthasasthra Ventures; Muraleedharan Nair; Aparna Sasi Menon). The Form-5 application should be decided by examining actual land status and feasibility for paddy cultivation, using KSRSEC data, rather than accepting a single report’s conclusion.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on the Agricultural Officer’s report to justify keeping the land in the Data Bank and denying Form-5 removal. They argue that statutory procedures under Rule 4(4E) and 4(4F) permit verification and that the LLMC’s previous stance may be a factor, but adherence to the statute and data under KSRSEC is essential. The original Ext. P6 order reflects due consideration of the land’s status and the protection of paddy/wetland resources.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	The court cites this decision to require independent assessment of land status and the need to consider whether land was paddy land on the date of enforcement of the Act, and its impact on paddy cultivation.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Used to emphasize that removal from the Data Bank cannot be dismissed by mere LLMC decree; must be independently assessed.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (6) KHC 83	Positive	Supports the emphasis on whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation and feasible to exclude from the Data Bank.

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 Chandran P v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ## WP(C) NO. 29041 OF 2023 ## PETITIONER: CHANDRAN P AGED 63 YEARS S/O. PUNNUCHAMI, RESIDING AT KOZHUKKULLY HOUSE, PANTHALAMCODE, PULLODE, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 545 BY ADVS. P.R.VENKATESH LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R. ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001. - 2 TAHASILAR TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 541. - 3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, ALATHUR PO, PALAKKAD, - PIN – 678 541. - 4 ALATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT ALATHUR PO, PALAKKAD, REP BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN – 678 541. ## BY ADV. ## SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W. P.(C) No.29041 of 2023 : 2 : ## JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. 2. Petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 0.0668 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.631/12 and 0.1335 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.631/17 in Block No.28 of Alathur Village, Alathur Taluk in Palakkad District. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid properties will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wet land as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2008'). However, it is W. P.(C) No.29041 of 2023 : 3 : stated that, the properties are wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 application in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2008') before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said properties from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P6 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that, it is evident from the KSRSEC report and site inspection that the land is not converted before 2008 and the land need not be excluded from the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 contending, inter alia, that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against W. P.(C) No.29041 of 2023 : 4 : the provisions of the Act, 2008 and the binding precedents of this 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 Technological institutions and orders on the pass appropriate W. P.(C) No.29041 of 2023 : 5 : application. On a perusal of Ext.P6, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date coming into force of the Act, 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied upon the report of the Agricultural Officer to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. There is no independent examination of the KSRSEC report by the Revenue Divisional Officer. On the other hand, the RDO has blindly followed the report of the Agricultural Officer without any independent assessment of the land. 6. The learned Government Pleader has produced a copy of the KSRSEC report along with a memo. 7. 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 W. P.(C) No.29041 of 2023 : 6 : 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 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 W. P.(C) No.29041 of 2023 : 7 : 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. 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. W. P.(C) No.29041 of 2023 : 8 : 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 in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter on the basis of KSRSEC report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the copy of the judgment before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- ## MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ W. P.(C) No.29041 of 2023 : 9 : ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29041/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS - Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 28.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE ALATHUR VILLAGE OFFICER. - Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF HE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATE 29.10.2021 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO. 631/7 ISSUED BY THE ALATHUR VILLAGE OFFICE. - Exhibit-3 TRUE COPY OF HE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATE 29.10.2021 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO. 631/12 ISSUED BY THE ALATHUR VILLAGE OFFICE. - Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF HE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE ALATHUR VILLAGE OFFICER. - Exhibit-P5 - TURE COPY THE THE APPLICATION DATED 02.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. - Exhibit-P6 TURE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.09.2022 RECEIEVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE RDO. - Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.