Deepa C.M v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Local Level Monitoring Committee Arikkulam Grama Panchayath, and Arikkulam Village Officer

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 7010 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER(S):** DEEPA C.M AGED 38 YEARS W/O. MURALEEDHARAN, KINARULLATHIL, ORORALLUR DESOM, OORALLUR POST, ARIKKULAM VILLAGE, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673620 BY ADVS. J.RAMKUMAR AMRIN FATHIMA CHRISTY TONY ## **RESPONDENT(S):** 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OPPOSITE GOVT. REST HOUSE, OLD BUS STAND, PUTHIYAPPU, VATAKARA, KERALA, PIN - 673101 2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ARIKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PERAMBRA-KOYILANDY RD, ARIKKULAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673620 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ARIKKULAM VILLAGE, ARIKKULAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673620 BY ADV. SMT.DEVI SHRI.R, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.7010 OF 2024 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.7010 of 2024** **------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd ] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: _“_ i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction; ii) declare that the property covered by Ext. P1 is liable to be excluded from the data bank and direct the 2[nd] respondent to remove the property from data bank; iii) direct the respondents to reconsider the Exhibit P3 application filed by the petitioner in Form No. 5 in the light of the dictum laid down by this Hon’ble Court; iv) dispense with the filing of translation of all vernacular documents. v) issue such other writ, order or WP(C) NO.7010 OF 2024 3 direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. _”[SIC]_ 2. Petitioner is the co-owner in title and possession of land covered by Ext.P1. The land is a converted land and there are several buildings in the adjacent properties is the submission. Several residential houses are situated in the same Resurvey number is the further submission. It is also submitted that the Family Health Centre, Arikkulam Village is situated on the southern boundary of the property covered by Ext.P1. A Tile factory is also functioning in the said locality is the submission. According to the petitioner, the land belongs to her is not at all suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the same had been shown as Nilam in the BTR and Data Bank is the further submission. According to the petitioner, she does not have any other property in her name. WP(C) NO.7010 OF 2024 4 Hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 Form 5 application before the 1[st] respondent. But the same was rejected by the 1[st] respondent as per Ext.P4 order without considering the ground realities and ignoring the report of the Village officer is the submission. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 is an order granting Form – 5 application in favour of an adjacent property owner. Hence it is submitted that the rejection of Form – 5 application submitted by the petitioner is unsustainable. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 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.P4 order. In WP(C) NO.7010 OF 2024 5 ## _**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. 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 WP(C) NO.7010 OF 2024 6 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. 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 WP(C) NO.7010 OF 2024 7 is not a speaking order. The contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 1[st] 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: 1. Ext.P4 order is set aside. 2. The 1[st] respondent is directed to 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. 3. 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 WP(C) NO.7010 OF 2024 8 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 1[st] respondent. If an application is filed for getting the KSREC report, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to pass orders in Form – 5 application only within three months from the date of receipt of the report from the KSREC. 4. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO.7010 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7010/2024** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1000/2018 OF SRO, KOYILANDI EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 31.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARIKULAM VILLAGE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.5 APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 05.07.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REMOVING THE PROPERTY OF SMT.SREELATHA FROM DATA BANK EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 20.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARIKKULAM VILLAGE RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE