Ebrahim V.K.C. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Vadakara, Kozhikode District; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Nochad; Village Officer, Nochad Village

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 35396 OF 2023** **PETITIONER:** EBRAHIM V.K.C AGED 58 YEARS S/O. MOITHI, VADAKKEKURIKACHALIL, P.O. NOCHAD, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673614 BY ADVS. K.P.SUDHEER P.ANIRUDHAN **RESPONDENTS:** 1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN - 673101 2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, NOCHAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673614 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NOCHAD VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE, NOCHAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673614. GP- RIYAL DEVASSY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **W.P.(C) No.35396 of 2023 2** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** ----------------------- **W.P.(C) No.35396 of 2023** --------------------------------- **Dated this the 18[th] day of of December, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P7 whereby the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner in respect of 12.95 Ares of land in Re-Survey No.30/18 of Nochad Village was rejected. 2. The petitioner submits that he is the absolute owner and in possession of a parcel of land having an extent of 12.95 Ares, in order to construct a building in the property covered by Ext.P1, petitioner has approached before the local authority, then only the petitioner came to know that the property has been wrongly included in Ext.P3 data bank. A perusal of Ext.P3 data bank would reveal that except 40 cents of land, the balance land in the said survey number has been converted prior to 2000. Therefore, the only conclusion that could be arrived at is that only 40 cents of land is included in Ext.P3 data bank. ## **W.P.(C) No.35396 of 2023 3** Petitioner submits that Ext.P5 report of the Agricultural Officer in respect of the petitioner's application wherein it is specifically stated that the property has been converted and there are various coconut trees and other trees standing in the property and the property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and therefore it was reported that the property could be removed from the data bank after going through the report of the KSRSEC. KSRSEC report is produced as Ext.P6, but in the said report the data of 2008 is not available. Therefore, the said report is of no help for deciding the issue raised in this writ petition. I am also of the opinion that the reason stated in Ext.P7 that the property is low lying land cannot be a reason for including the property in the data bank, especially even in Ext.P5 report it is specifically stated that the property is converted and not fit for any paddy cultivation. 3. This Court in _**Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394]**_ has ## **W.P.(C) No.35396 of 2023 4** held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in _**Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala[2020 (5) KHC 490]**_ has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In _**Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector[2021 (1) KLT 433]**_ it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in _**Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala[2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222]**_ has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available ## **W.P.(C) No.35396 of 2023 5** materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. 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 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. Further, this Court in _**Aparna**_ ## _**Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (5)**_ _**KLT 432]**_ has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is ## **W.P.(C) No.35396 of 2023 6** sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. 4. In spite of these categorical declaration by this Court in a catena of judgments as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected solely relying on the decision of the LLMC that not to remove the paddy land from the data bank. 5. Therefore, based on the findings in Ext.P5, the nature of the entry of the property in Ext.P3 draft data bank which gives an indication that only 40 cents of land could be treated as paddy land and be included in the data bank, I am of the opinion that Ext.P7 order is liable to be set aside and the application will have to be reconsidered by the 1[st] respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1[st] respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner specifically taking note of the nature of entry of the property in Ext.P3 data bank and Ext.P5 report of the Agricultural Officer. Fresh ## **W.P.(C) No.35396 of 2023 7** orders in this regard shall be passed within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment, duly adverting to the direction laid down in the judgments cited supra. Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** pm ## **W.P.(C) No.35396 of 2023 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35396/2023** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P 1|TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED DATED| ||09.01.1997 REGISTERED AS DOC. NO.| ||66/1997 OF NADUVANNUR SRO.| |EXHIBIT P 2|TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.| ||72911009 DATED 21.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE| ||VILLAGE OFFICER, NOCHAD VILLAGE OFFICE| ||TO THE PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P 3|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DRAFT| ||DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF NOCHAD GRAMA| ||PANCHAYAT| |EXHIBIT P 4|PHOTOGRAPHS (3 NOS.) OF THE PROPERTY IN| ||QUESTION.| |EXHIBIT P 5|TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 8.2.2023| ||SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND| ||OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT| ||TO INFORMATION ACT ON 4.10.2023.| |EXHIBIT P 6|TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 8.2.2023 OF| ||THE KSREC OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER| ||UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE| ||OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P 7|TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 4028/2023 DATED| ||24.8.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT|