High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-01-12Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P8 set aside; re...

Fazil Aboobacker V.K v. Local Level Monitoring Committee, Karassery Grama Panchayat and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 43724 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman J.
Judgment Date: 2024-01-12
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of; Ext.P8 is set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to re-consider Ext.P4 (Form-5) in accordance with law, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after adverting to the KSREC report. If Ext.P4 is allowed, the 4th respondent shall also consider Ext.P6 (Form-7) within one month thereafter, if in order.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P8 set aside; remand to 4th respondent to re-consider Ext.P4 in accordance with law with KSREC data within two months; if Ext.P4 is allowed, 4th respondent to consider Ext.P6 Form-7 within one month thereafter.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Fazil Aboobacker V.K

Respondents

The Local Level Monitoring Committee, Karassery Grama Panchayat represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Karassery, Kozhikode
Kakkad Village Office, Kozhikode District
District Collector, Kozhikode
Revenue Divisional Officer, Eranhippalam, Kozhikode
Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre represented by its Director
State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Krishna Prasad
• Sindhu S Kamath
• Swapna S.K.
• Rohini Nair
• Suraj Kumar D.
• Sunil Kumar K.K.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner Fazil Aboobacker V.K., owner of about 20.80 acres of land in Re.Sy No.123/2 of Kakkad Village, seeks removal of his land from the Data Bank, where it is recorded as a ‘nanja’ (wetland) despite revenue records classifying it as converted land. He filed Form-5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 to rectify entries, but Ext.P8 (the 4th respondent’s order dated 09-01-2023) rejected the application solely on the basis of the Village Officer’s report. The court notes that earlier decisions in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022) and Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2023) require independent assessment by the competent authority, with recourse to scientific data such as KSREC satellite imagery when necessary, rather than mere reliance on LLMC conclusions. The petitioner alleges a non-application of mind and seeks remittance for re-consideration under Form-5, and, if allowed, consideration of Ext.P6 (Form-7). The court sets aside Ext.P8, directing the 4th respondent to re-consider Ext.P4 in light of law and KSREC data within two months and to examine Ext.P6 if applicable within one month thereafter.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, Rule 4(d)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Independent assessment by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) is necessary when considering Form-5 applications; RDO may rely on KSREC satellite data when available.
Removal from the Data Bank cannot rest solely on LLMC’s decision and must be backed by independent assessment and evidence indicating impact on paddy cultivation and wetlands.
If land was paddy land or wetland at the time of Act 2008, appropriate verification and data-driven evaluation must guide inclusion/removal from Data Bank.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that Ext.P8 (01-09-2023) rejects Ext.P4 Form-5 only on a Village Officer’s report, with no independent appraisal by the 4th respondent. Kerala Rules require assessment of whether the land was paddy land or a wetland at the time of Act 2008 and permit resort to scientific data (e.g., KSREC satellite data). The LLMC’s stance cannot be the sole basis to deny relief; independence in assessment is mandated, and KSREC data should be considered. The court’s cited decisions (Arthasasthra Ventures; Muraleedharan Nair) support independent evaluation of data and its impact on paddy/wetland status; thus Ext.P8 is vitiated by non-application of mind. The petitioner seeks remand for proper consideration of Ext.P4 and Ext.P6 (Form-7) within stipulated timeframes in accordance with law.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend Ext.P8 reflects a reasoned decision based on the LLMC’s stance and available materials, including the Village Officer’s report. The 4th respondent’s order is to be read in light of the law governing Form-5 and the evidence on record, including the 5th respondent’s report and the Data Bank classification. They argue for maintaining the LLMC’s position and for a cautious approach to altering Data Bank status, citing the need to protect paddy lands and wetlands and to ensure data integrity and consistency with the Act 2008 and relevant rules.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222	Positive	Cited to emphasize independent data-based assessment and the use of KSREC data in Form-5 considerations.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Used to support the need for independent assessment by the RDO and not reliance solely on LLMC’s decision.
W.P.(C). No. 19946 of 2020	W.P.(C). No. 19946 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P9 shows a judgment copy; referenced as an exhibit, not a central reasoning pillar.

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 Fazil Aboobacker V.K v. Local Level Monitoring Committee, Karassery Grama Panchayat 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 22ND POUSHA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 43724 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** **FAZIL ABOOBACKER V.K REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FAHIQ ABOOBACKER AGED 38 YEARS S/O. ABOOBACKER V.K. VALIYAKATTIL HOUSE, ELANGODE, PANOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA-670692 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FAHIQ ABOOBACKER, S/O ABOOBACKER V.K., AGED 32 YEARS, VALIYAKATTIL HOUSE, GOVT. HOSPITAL ROAD, POST THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 673573** **BY ADVS. KRISHNA PRASAD. S SINDHU S KAMATH SWAPNA S.K. ROHINI NAIR SURAJ KUMAR D. SUNILKUMAR K.K.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KARASSERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673602** **2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673602** **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020** **4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020** **WP(C) NO. 43724 OF 2023 : 2 :** **5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003** **6 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR.GP.K.AMMINIKUTTY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 43724 OF 2023 : 3 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the owner in possession of 20.80 Ares of land comprised in Re.Sy No.123/2 of Kakkad Village, Karasseri Desom of Kozhikode Taluk, Kozhikode District by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. According to the petitioner, the said property has been classified as 'converted land' in the revenue records. However, in the draft data bank, the property is wrongly classified as 'nanja (wetland)'. The petitioner, therefore, filed Ext.P4 application in Form-5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the 4[th] respondent to rectify the mistakes crept in the revenue records and to remove the entries from the data bank, after remitting requisite fees. As per the **WP(C) NO. 43724 OF 2023 : 4 :** request of the 1[st] respondent, the 5[th] respondent has submitted Ext.P5 report. However, by Ext.P8, the 4[th] respondent rejected Ext.P4 solely relying on the report of the Village Officer. The petitioner submits that Ext.P8 order is vitiated by non-application of mind. The submits that there is no petitioner independent consideration of Ext.P4 application by the 4[th] respondent in Ext.P8. According to the petitioner, his property covered by Ext.P1 has to be removed from the data bank and that there is no paddy cultivated in the said property. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. This Court in **Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP** v. **State of Kerala** [2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222] has held that the most relevant aspect while **WP(C) NO. 43724 OF 2023 : 5 :** 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 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 **WP(C) NO. 43724 OF 2023 : 6 :** 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. 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 Village Officer not to remove the paddy land from the data bank. 5. In view of the above, Ext.P8 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the 4[th] respondent to re-consider Ext.P4 application, in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of two months from **WP(C) NO. 43724 OF 2023 : 7 :** the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after adverting to the report of the KSREC. If the 4[th] respondent allows Ext.P4 application, the 4[th] respondent shall also consider Ext.P6 application of the petitioner in Form-7, in accordance with law, within a period of one month therefrom, if the same is in order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB **WP(C) NO. 43724 OF 2023 : 8 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1733 OF 2005 DATED 31-03-2005** **Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM KAKKAD VILLAGE DATED 07-10-2022** **Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DATA BANK DATED 16-03-2012** **Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE ACCOMPANYING LETTER AND RECEIPT DATED 05-12-2019** **Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 28-04-2020** **Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 28-09-2020** **Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN FOR REMITTANCE OF FEE DATED 28-09-2020** **Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM-V ON 09-01-2023** **Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 19946 OF 2020 DATED 07-08-2023**