Chandrika (W/o Late Krishnankutty) v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ## WP(C) NO. 10807 OF 2024 ## PETITIONER: CHANDRIKA AGED 60 YEARS, W/O LATE KRISHNANKUTTY, KURUPATH VEEDU, MUNDAKODE, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 007. BY ADVS. RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY MAYA C.P. K.V.ANTONY VIJINA K. ARUL MURALIDHARAN ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001. - 2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KODUMBU (CONVENER UNDER LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER ACT 28/2008), OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KODUMBU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 551. BY ADV. SMT. K. AMMINIKUTTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 10807 OF 2024 2 ## 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 and her son are the absolute owners in possession of an extent of 37.2 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.516/1 in Block No.46 of Kodumbu Village, Palakkad District. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property 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 stated that, the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 application in Form 5 of Rule WP(C) NO. 10807 OF 2024 3 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 land 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, the subject land is not converted and is lying fallow and is fit for agricultural purposes and the LLMC recommended not to remove the property from 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 the provisions of the Act, 2008 and the binding precedents of this Court. It is also contended that the Revenue WP(C) NO. 10807 OF 2024 4 Divisional Officer should have called for a report from the KSRSEC before disposing of the Form 5 application to ascertain the exact nature of the land as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. 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 WP(C) NO. 10807 OF 2024 5 direct inspection or with the help of satellite images prepared by Central/State Scientific Technological institutions and orders on the pass appropriate 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 and LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. 6. 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 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 6 WP(C) NO. 10807 OF 2024 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 LIMC 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 7 WP(C) NO. 10807 OF 2024 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. 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 8 WP(C) NO. 10807 OF 2024 reconsider Ext.P5 application 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 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 WP(C) NO. 10807 OF 2024 9 ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10807/2024 - PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 19-11-2023 ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM KODUMBU VILLAGE OFFICE. - Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 28-10-2023 ISSUED FROM THE KODUMBU VILLAGE OFFICE TO PETITIONER. - Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KODUMBU TO PETITIONER. - Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDING ITS NEIGHBORHOOD. - Exhibit P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 25-5-2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT BY SON OF PETITIONER -KISHOR KUMAR. - Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2-9-2023 IN FILE NO. 6497/2023 PASSED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT.