G.RAGUNATHAN v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO.4582 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` G.RAGUNATHAN, AGED 70 YEARS S/O.GOVINDAN, KRISHNA VILASOM, ANADHAEWARAM, CHEMBARANI P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695301 ``` ``` BY ADV G.S.REGHUNATH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043`** - **`3 SUB COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043`** - **`4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043`** - **`5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, SREEKARIYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017`** - **`6 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, EAST FORT, PAZHAVANGADI P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023`** - **`7 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, ULLIAZHTHURA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017`** W.P.(C) No.4582 of 2024 2 ``` 8LOCAL LEVEL MONITARY COMMITY REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, SREEKARIYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017 ``` ``` BY SMT.R.DEVI SHRI, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.4582 of 2024 3 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P10, P11 and P12 orders whereby Form 5 applications submitted by him have been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer [RDO] solely relying on the report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee [for brevity, ’the LLMC’]. ``` ``` 2. Petitioner is the owner in possession of 27.20 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.405/3, 406/7 and 406/8 of Uliyazhathura Village, Thiruvananthapuram District. Though the properties have three separate thandaper numbers, it is lying as a single plot. ``` ``` 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid properties will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ``` W.P.(C) No.4582 of 2024 4 ``` (for brevity, ‘the Act, 2008’). However, it is stated that the properties are wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Exts.P7 to P9 applications in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the RDO to remove the said lands from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the RDO vide Exts.P10, P11 and Ext.P12 orders stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that LLMC has recommendded that the respective land mentioned in the orders is Paddy Land as per the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre [for short, ‘the KSRSEC’] and it is suitable for paddy cultivation and should not be excluded from the Data Bank and if conversion occurs, it will have a negative impact and will result in environmental issues. ``` W.P.(C) No.4582 of 2024 5 ``` 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P10, P11 & P12 contending, inter alia, that they are vitiated by non application of mind and are against the provisions of the Act, 2008 and the binding precedents of this Court. It is also contended that the RDO should have called for a report from the KSRSEC to ascertain the status of the land as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. ``` ``` 5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wetland is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. On a perusal of Exts.P10, P11 & P12, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, the RDO has relied solely upon the ``` W.P.(C) No.4582 of 2024 6 ``` report of the Agricultural Officer and the LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 6. This Court has 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 as on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. This Court, inMuraleedharan 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.4582 of 2024 7 ``` 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. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. ``` ``` In spite of the categorical declarations by ``` W.P.(C) No.4582 of 2024 8 ``` this Court in the decisions cited above, the petitioner’s applications have been rejected, solely relying on the report of the LLMC, which recommended not to remove the land from the Data Bank. Accordingly, I find that Exts.P10, P11 & P12 orders cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 4[th] respondent, the RDO, to reconsider Exts.P7 to P9 applications 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.4582 of 2024 9 ``` with a copy of the judgment before the 4[th] respondent for due compliance. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` ``` sp/08/02/2024 ``` W.P.(C) No.4582 of 2024 10 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 06-12-2021 IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THANDAPER NO.4112 ``` ``` Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 06-12-2021 IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THANDAPER NO.7308 ``` - **`Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 12-07-2018 IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P4 A COPY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTIES`** - **`Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THAT GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.E16/51965/17 DATED 22.01.2021`** - **`Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 15.10.2022`** - **`Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16-12-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 4 IN FORM-5 REGARDING SURVEY NO.405/3`** - **`Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16-12-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM-5 REGARDING SURVEY NO.406/7`** - **`Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16-12-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM-5 REGARDING SURVEY NO.406/8`** W.P.(C) No.4582 of 2024 11 ## **`Exhibit P10`** ## **`Exhibit P11`** ## **`Exhibit P12`** ## **`Exhibit P13`** ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RDOTVM.2862 DATED 06.10.2022 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO 4.40 ARES IN SURVEY NO.406/8 OF ULIYAZTHURA VILLAGE ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RDOTVM. 3947/2022-11 DATED 21.08.2022 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR REJECTING THE PRAYER REGARDING 14.85 ARES IN SURVEY NO. 405/3 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RDOTVM. 3946/2022-1 DATED 27.01.2023 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO 07.95 ARES ``` - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.02.2023 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR`**