DILROOBA AHAMMED v. SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA; AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY AGRICULTURAL OFFICE; TAHSILDAR, ERANAD TALUK; VILLAGE OFFICER, PANAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE; LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 /10TH PHALGUNA,1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 6572 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` DILROOBA AHAMMED AGED 33 YEARS W/O. HANEEFA ANOOS, AVUNHIPURAM HOUSE, MUNDUPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 509. ``` ``` BY ADV C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SANTHI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679 322.`** - **`2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 505.`** - **`3 THE TAHSILDAR, ERANAD TALUK OFFICE, VELLARANGAL, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676 517.`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PANAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE, KOLAMANNA, PANAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676 519.`** - **`5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 505.`** ## **`SMT. - R.DEVI SHRI, GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C).No.6572 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 18.62 Ares of land in Block No.001, Sy.No.331/1-4 of Panakkad Village, Eranadu Taluk in Malappuram 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 'the Act, 2008’). However, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy ``` WP(C).No.6572 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules’) 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.P5. The reason stated is that, as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the property is not converted before 2008 and is suitable for paddy cultivation and need not be removed from the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 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 Divisional Officer should have called for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (for short, the KSRSEC’) before disposing of 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. ``` WP(C).No.6572 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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 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 Centre/State Scientific Technological Institutions and pass appropriate orders on the application. On a perusal of Ext.P5, 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. ``` WP(C).No.6572 OF 2024 ``` ## **`5`** 6. This Court had 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 coming into force of the Act, 2008 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 in the land in ``` WP(C).No.6572 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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. In **Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has held 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 and feasible. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P5 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 ``` WP(C).No.6572 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` application 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 a copy of this judgment before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- ## **`MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` JUDGE ``` SPR ``` WP(C).No.6572 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PANAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 29.04.2023. EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH ONLINE DATED 09.02.2023. EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF CONVERSION FEE DATED 09.02.2023. EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.4985/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 14.02.2023. EXHIBIT P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.06.2023. EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.05.2023. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.`**