Dr. Nizar Mohammed N.M. v. District Collector, Kozhikode; Revenue Divisional Officer, Eranhipalam; Agricultural Officer, Olavanna Krishi Bhavan; Village Officer, Pantheerankavu

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 10456 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **DR. NIZAR MOHAMMED N.M. AGED 61 YEARS S/O. N.K. MOHAMMED (LATE), JAMAL MANZIL, PATTAMBI ROAD, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676552** **BY ADV. K.RAKESH** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020** - **3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER OLAVANNA KRISHI BHAVAN, GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673014** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PANTHEERANKAVU VILLAGE, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673019** ## **BY ADV.** ## **SMT.DEVI SHRI.R, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO.10456 OF 2024 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.10456 of 2024 ------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) Call for records leading up to Exhibit P3 and set aside the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders of directions directing the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 after calling for satellite data from KSREC and further on the basis of the dictum of this Hon’ble Court in _**Niyas Vs. District Collector, Palakkad (2023(6) KLT 118)**_ iii) Declare that the property of the petitioner cannot be classified as paddy WP(C) NO.10456 OF 2024 3 land as defined under Section 2 (xii) of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. iv) Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents; v) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” _[SIC]_ 2. The property of the petitioner is included in the data bank published in the Krishi Bhavan, Olavanna. The property of the petitioner is situated at the heart of Pantheerankavu town which is a prominent place very close to Kozhikode city is the submission. It is also the case of the petitioner that the property is surrounded by buildings including public institutions and hence the property can be safely considered as a dry land, which is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The petitioner along with others submitted applications in Form 5 before the 2[nd] respondent to delete the property from the data WP(C) NO.10456 OF 2024 4 bank. The 2[nd] respondent rejected the application vide Ext.P3 order, stating that the report of the Village Officer is against conversion pointing out that the same would affect the ecology and neighbouring cultivations and also that the property is not converted before 2008. The petitioner relied on Ext.P4 photographs to show the lie and nature of the property. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 order is passed without calling for satellite data from KSREC and on multifarious grounds. Hence Ext.P3 is to be set aside. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 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.P3 order. WP(C) NO.10456 OF 2024 5 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 Committee 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 WP(C) NO.10456 OF 2024 6 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. 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 7 WP(C) NO.10456 OF 2024 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: i) Ext.P3 order is set aside. ii) The 2[nd] 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. WP(C) NO.10456 OF 2024 8 iii) 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 fresh KSREC report is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to consider the Form 5 application only within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report from the KSREC. WP(C) NO.10456 OF 2024 9 iv) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 2[nd] respondent for compliance. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO.10456 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10456/2024** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 23-08-2007 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED IN OLAVANNA KRKSHI BHAVAN** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1606-2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ACTUAL LIE OF THE PROPERTY** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**