High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-12Writ petition disposed of with directions

ITHACHUMMA v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD; VILLAGE OFFICER ANAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, ANAKKARA P.O., PALAKKAD; AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, ANAKKARA, KUMBIDI P.O., PALAKKAD

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 9585 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman J.
Judgment Date: 2024-03-12
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P6 is set aside; the Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 in accordance with law and after obtaining a KSRSEC report, at the petitioner’s expense, within two months from the date of receipt of the report; the petitioner to obtain KSRSEC report from Agricultural Officer within two weeks; writ petition disposed of with directions.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ithachumma

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Ottappalam, Palakkad
Village Officer, Anakkara Village Office, Anakkara, Palakkad
The Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Anakkara, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.Sujai Sathian
• Aiswarya S. Ashokan

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. AMMINIKUTTY, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Ithachumma challenges Ext.P6, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting Form 5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 2008) and its Rules, on the grounds that the land, though claimed not to be paddy land or wetland, had been included in the Data Bank. The petitioner contends the land is not paddy land as of the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, and asserts the Data Bank inclusion is erroneous. Form 5 applications seek removal from Data Bank; the RDO’s decision relied solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report, which stated that there are coconut trees about ten years old in bunds near a waterlogged area and that the land was converted after 2008; thus the application was rejected. The petitioner argues that the RDO failed to independently assess the nature of the property as of 12.08.2008 and did not call for a KSRSEC (Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environmental Centre) report, as required by Rule 4(4E)-(4F). The court cites prior Kerala decisions requiring independent assessment and consideration of the land’s status as of the Act’s date, and holding that mere reliance on LIMC data or the LIMC report is insufficient. The court sets aside Ext.P6 and directs the RDO to reconsider Ext.P5 after obtaining a KSRSEC report, with costs to petitioner.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends Ext.P6 is vitiated by non-application of mind and contrary to the Act, 2008 and binding precedents. The RDO should independently assess the land’s status as on 12.08.2008, and call for a KSRSEC report before disposing Form 5. The land is allegedly not within the ambit of paddy land or wetland, and its inclusion in the Data Bank is erroneous. The petition seeks removal of the land from Data Bank and challenges reliance solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend the impugned Ext.P6 was issued in accordance with law, relying on the Agricultural Officer’s report that the land has coconut trees aged about 10 years and that it was converted after 2008; the Form 5 application is governed by Rule 4, and the RDO’s evaluation need not, or has yet to, rely on KSRSEC report; the decision complies with rules and prior data.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	Cited to require independent consideration of land status as of the date of coming into force and its suitability for paddy cultivation.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Cited for the principle that the RDO must independently assess status and not rely solely on LIMC decisions.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (6) KHC 83	Positive	Cited to emphasize predominant factor of land’s suitability for paddy cultivation.

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 ITHACHUMMA v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD; VILLAGE OFFICER ANAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, ANAKKARA P.O., PALAKKAD; AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, ANAKKARA, KUMBIDI P.O., PALAKKAD 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 TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 ## WP(C) NO. 9585 OF 2024 ## PETITIONER: ITHACHUMMA, AGED 99 YEARS W/O ABDUL HAMEED, THYVALAPPIL, ANAKKARA P.O. PALAKKAD, PIN - 679551 BY ADVS. - K.SUJAI SATHIAN AISWARYA S. ASHOKAN ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 101. - 2 VILLAGE OFFICER ANAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, ANAKKARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 551. - 3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, ANAKKARA, KUMBIDI P.O. PALAKKAD, PIN – 679 553. ## BY ADV. - SMT.AMMINIKUTTY - SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W. P.(C) No. 9585 of 2024 : 2 : ## JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. 2. Petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of 28.74 Ares of land in Survey No.196/3-1 of Anakkara Village, Pattambi Taluk in Palakkad 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 'Act, 2008'). However, it is stated that, the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. W. P.(C) No. 9585 of 2024 : 3 : The petitioner filed Ext.P5 application in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2008') 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.P6 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that, in the bunds made near the water logged area of the subject land there are coconut trees aged about 10 years and that it is convinced that the land was converted after 2008 and Form 5 application can be submitted only for removing lands converted before 2008. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 contending, inter alia, that the W. P.(C) No. 9585 of 2024 : 4 : 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 KSRSEC before disposing of the 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. 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, 2008 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 W. P.(C) No. 9585 of 2024 : 5 : 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 Central/State Scientific Technological institutions and pass appropriate orders on the application. On a perusal of Ext.P6, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date coming into force of the Act, 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied upon the report of the Agricultural Officer 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 W. P.(C) No. 9585 of 2024 : 6 : 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 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 LIMC 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 W. P.(C) No. 9585 of 2024 : 7 : 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 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 W. P.(C) No. 9585 of 2024 : 8 : not to remove the land from the Data Bank. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P6 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext. P5 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 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 the copy of the judgment before the Revenue Divisional Officer. W. P.(C) No. 9585 of 2024 : 9 : The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- # MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ W. P.(C) No. 9585 of 2024 : 10 : ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9585/2024 ## PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECEIPTS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28-04-2022. - Exhibit P2 - A. TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2022. - Exhibit P3 A. TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY. - Exhibit P4 A. TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS INCLUDED. - Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DT 8/11/22. - Exhibit P6 - A. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20-11-2023 REJECTING THE FORM 5 APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.