High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-28Writ petition disposed of with directions (Ext....

C.V.George v. District Collector Palakkad and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.5499 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with directions: Ext.P8 is set aside; the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner may submit an application to obtain the KSREC report within two weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment; if such a report is available, the 2nd respondent will consider it. If KSREC reports are called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer must pass final orders in Form 5 within three months from the receipt of the KSREC report. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment along with the writ petition and exhibits before the 2nd respondent for compliance.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions (Ext.P8 set aside; remand for reconsideration with statutory compliance).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.V.George

Respondents

The District Collector, Palakkad Civil Station, Palakkad
Revenue Divisional Officer Civil Station, Palakkad
The Principal Agricultural Officer Office of the Principal Agricultural Officer, Civil Station, Palakkad
The Village Officer Vadakkencherry-I Village, Vadakkencherry, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad
The Agricultural Officer Krishibhavan, Vadakkencherry.P.O, Alathur, Palakkad
Local Level Monitoring Committee Vadakkencherry Grama Panchayat, Vadakkencherry.P.O, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad, rep. by its convener

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.A.Johnson (Varikkappallil)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Ammunikutty.K, Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner C.V. George, absolute owner of 0.0243 hectare Nilam land described as Re. Sy. No. 258/31 in Block No. 44 of Vadakkencherry‑I Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad, seeks removal of the land from the State data bank under Form 5. He contends the land is barren and not suitable for paddy cultivation, making preservation impracticable, and that he has no alternative land for constructing a residence. He alleges the Ext.P8 order of 20.12.2023 dismissing his Form 5 application was not a speaking order and relied only on a KSREC/Local Level Monitoring Committee report without independent appraisal by the Revenue Divisional Officer, contrary to law. The respondents oppose the challenge, arguing the decision reflects the LLMC’s conclusion and KSREC findings; the RDO is the proper authority to weigh the evidence and decide whether removal would adversely affect paddy cultivation or wetlands. The court cites Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO to emphasize that a speaking order with reasoned analysis and independent assessment is required, and that mere adoption of reports is insufficient. It concludes the Ext.P8 order cannot stand and disposes the matter by setting aside Ext.P8, directing the RDO to reconsider the Form 5 application within three months, and to obtain/consider KSREC findings if available, with final orders within the referenced period and otherwise compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends ownership and classification of the land as Nilam; the land is barren and not suitable for paddy cultivation; preservation is impracticable and there is no alternate land for constructing a residential building. He filed Form 5 to remove the land from the Data Bank, but Ext.P8 dismissed it without addressing ground realities, relying on reports rather than independent assessment. He argues the RDO must independently determine whether removal would adversely affect paddy cultivation or sustain wetlands, and that the predominant factor is feasibility of paddy cultivation on the land sought to be excluded, as emphasized in related Kerala cases. The KSREC report and the status as on 12.08.2008 require proper scientific ascertainment. He seeks setting aside Ext.P8 and directions to reconsider Form 5 within a short timeframe, with KSREC data obtained if available.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue Ext.P8 reflects the LLMC’s decision and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, as the competent authority, acted on KSREC findings and relevant reports. They contend the data bank scheme preserves productive agricultural land and that removal should be allowed only after independent assessment shows no adverse effect on paddy cultivation or wetlands. They assert the order is a reasoned decision grounded in evidence and that LLMC’s conclusion cannot be the sole basis; KSREC reports are valid inputs. They maintain there is no error requiring quashing Ext.P8 and that the proper remedy is a reasoned order after reconsideration, incorporating scientific/ground realities and the statutory framework.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Cited to support that a speaking order with independent assessment is required, and not mere reliance on committee reports.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (5) KLT 432	Positive	Cited to emphasize that the predominant criterion in Form 5 is feasibility of paddy cultivation on the land sought to be excluded.

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 C.V.George v. District Collector Palakkad and 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 5499 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONER(S):`** ``` C.V.GEORGE, AGED 76 YEARS ``` ``` S/O.VARGHESE, CHERICHALATHIL, PUZHAKKALIDOM, VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683 ``` ``` BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT( S ) :`** - **`1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001`** - **`2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001`** - **`3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VADAKKENCHERRY-I VILLAGE, VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683`** - **`5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHIBHAVAN, VADAKKENCHERRY.P.O, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683`** - **`6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VADAKKENCHERRY.P.O, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, REP.BY ITS CONVENER., PIN - 678543`** ## **`BY ADV.`** ## **`SMT. AMMNIKUTTY.K, SR. GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.5499 OF 2024 ``` 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.5499 of 2024 ------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th ] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction and quash Ext.P8, Order in File No.10176/2023 dated 20.12.2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction and direct the 2nd respondent to delete the petitioner’s property comprised in Re.Sy.No.258/31 in Block No.44 of Vadakkencherry-I Village, Alathur Taluk in Palakkad District having an extent of 0.0243 Hectare from the Ext.P5, Data Bank. iii) It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may dispense the production of English ``` WP(C) NO.5499 OF 2024 ``` 3 Translation of the documents produced in the above W.P.(c) and Petitioner undertakes to produce the same as and when required by this Hon’ble Court. And iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice. ” [SIC] 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in Re.Sy.No.258/31 in Block No.44 of Vadakkancherry-I Village, Alathur Taluk in Palakkad District having an extent of 0.0243 hectare. The petitioner’s property is classified as ‘Nilam’. According to the petitioner, it is a barren land and it is not suitable for any paddy cultivation. It is submitted that, the preservation of the property is impracticable. It is also the case of the petitioner that, he is not having any other suitable property for the construction of a residential building. ``` WP(C) NO.5499 OF 2024 ``` 4 Hence, the petitioner submitted Form 5 application before the 2[nd] respondent to remove the land from the data bank. The same was dismissed as per Ext.P8 order. It is submitted that, Ext.P8 order was passed without considering the ground realities. Aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 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.P8 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 Commitee has decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank. ``` WP(C) NO.5499 OF 2024 ``` 5 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 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. ``` WP(C) NO.5499 OF 2024 ``` 6 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 contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 2[nd] 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.P8 order is set aside. b) The 2[nd] respondent is directed to ``` WP(C) NO.5499 OF 2024 ``` 7 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 2[nd] respondent. If any report from the KSREC is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to pass final orders in Form 5 application ``` WP(C) NO.5499 OF 2024 ``` 8 only within three months from the date of receipt of the report from KSREC. d) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 2[nd] respondent for compliance. Sd/- nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` WP(C) NO.5499 OF 2024 ``` 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5499/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** - **`EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 02.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`** - **`EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION MAP OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY`** - **`EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.09.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT`** - **`EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3143/1/2014 OF S.R.O, VADAKKENCHERRY DATED 15.12.2014`** - **`EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 4TH RESPONDENT`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY`** - **`EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 06.10.2022`** - **`EXHIBIT P8`** - **`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE NO.10176/2023 DATED 20.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**