High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-08Writ petition allowed; Ext. P9 quashed; matter ...

Iyas Mohammed v. District Collector, Ernakulam, Sub Collector Fort Kochi, Agricultural Officer Kalady, Kalady Grama Panchayat and Secretary Kalady Grama Panchayat, and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.4901 of 2024

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman J.
Bench Type: Single Judge
Judgment Date: 2024-02-08
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; Ext. P9 set aside; Directing the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, to reconsider Ext. P8 application in accordance with law and to take a decision after obtaining KSRSEC report at the petitioner’s expense, within two months from the date of receipt of the KSRSEC report. The petitioner is to apply for KSRSEC report within two weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Ext. P9 quashed; matter remitted with directions to reconsider Form 5 with independent assessment and KSRSEC report; two-month timeline; applicant to secure KSRSEC report within two weeks.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Iyas Mohammed

Respondents

District Collector, Ernakulam Collectorate, Kakkanad, Ernakulam
Sub Collector, Fort Kochi Office of the Sub Collector (RDO), Fort Kochi
Agricultural Officer, Kalady, Kalady Agricultural Office, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam
Secretary, Kalady Grama Panchayat, Kalady, Ernakulam District
Kalady Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary, Kalady P.O, Ernakulam
SMT. Amminikutty
Sri. Wilson Urmese

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. K. Mohammed Yousuf

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. Amminikutty
• Sri. Wilson Urmese

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Iyas Mohammed, filed WP(C) No. 4901 of 2024 challenging Ext. P9, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting his Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (and Rules, including Rule 4(d)) for removal of land from the Data Bank. The land in question is 1 Are 21 sq. m. of land in Re-Survey 375/16, Kalady, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam, which the petitioner claims is not paddy land or wetland as per the Act; he asserts erroneous Data Bank inclusion. Ext. P9 relies solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report, with LLMC’s recommendation, and dismisses independent factual assessment. The petitioner contends Ext. P9 reflects non‑application of mind and violates the Act and precedents. The Court recalls Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022) 7 KHC 591, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO (2023) 4 KLT 270, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO (2023) 6 KHC 83, emphasizing that the RDO must assess whether land was paddy land on the date of Act 2008 and whether removal would adversely affect paddy cultivation or wetlands, rather than relying solely on others’ reports. The Court notes Ext. P9 is unsustainable and sets it aside, directing the RDO to reconsider Ext. P8 Form 5 in light of KSRSEC report, at the petitioner’s expense, within two months, with the petitioner to apply for KSRSEC within two weeks, and to proceed in accordance with law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (Rule 4(d))Form 5 (Rule 4(d))

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext. P9 is vitiated by non‑application of mind and contrary to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and precedents. He asserts the land is not paddy land or wetland on the date of coming into force of the Act and that it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank. Ext. P9 relies only on the Agricultural Officer’s report and LLMC’s recommendation, without independent assessment of land status and impact on paddy cultivation or wetlands. He seeks removal from the Data Bank and directs an independent evaluation, including KSRSEC report, with costs borne by him, and compliance with the decisions in Arthasasthra Ventures (2022), Muraleedharan Nair (2023), and Aparna Sasi Menon (2023).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue Ext. P9 is a reasoned order based on LLMC inspection and Agricultural Officer’s assessment, consistent with Data Bank norms and the Act’s objective to protect paddy land and wetlands. They contend the LLMC's report supports non-removal and that the RDO is entitled to rely on expert inputs. The court should not substitute its own indepth assessment without due process. They request that Form 5 be reconsidered after obtaining KSRSEC report, with the petitioner bearing the cost, within two months, and that the process remain faithful to the Act and prior precedents.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	The Court cites this decision to require the RDO to independently assess land status on the date of the Act and its effect on paddy cultivation and wetlands, not merely rely on LLMC/departmental reports.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	The decision is cited to emphasize that removal from the Data Bank cannot be refused merely because LLMC declined removal; the RDO must independently assess impact on paddy cultivation and wetlands.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (6) KHC 83	Positive	Cited for the principle that the predominant factor is whether the land is capable of paddy cultivation and that such consideration should guide Form 5 decisions.

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 Iyas Mohammed v. District Collector, Ernakulam, Sub Collector Fort Kochi, Agricultural Officer Kalady, Kalady Grama Panchayat and Secretary Kalady 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** ## **THURSDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 4901 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** IYAS MOHAMMED AGED 34 YEARS EDAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAVOOR P.O, OKKAL , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683544 BY ADV V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021 2 SUB COLLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLLECTOR(RDO), FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001 3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KALADY. OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KALADY. ALUVA TALUK ERNAKLULAM., PIN - 683574 4 THE SECRETARY, KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683574 5 KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALADY P.O ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683574 SMT.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP SRI.WILSON URMESE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.4901 of 2024 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P9 whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 1 Are 21 Square meters of landed property in comprised in Re-Survey No.375/16 in Block No.26 of Kalady Village, Aluva Taluk in Ernakulam District. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wet land as defined under 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. The petitioner filed Ext.P8 application in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue W.P (C) No.4901 of 2024 3 Divisional Officer vide Ext.P9 stating that as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the LLMC had inspected the site and was satisfied that the land was not converted before 2008 and the property need not be removed from the data bank. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 contending, _inter alia,_ that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act, 2008 and the binding precedents of this Court. 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. On a perusal of Ext.P9, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date of coming into force of the Act 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and the recommendation of LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. 6. This Court has held in the decision in W.P (C) No.4901 of 2024 4 ## **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 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 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. In _**Aparna Sasi Menon**_ W.P (C) No.4901 of 2024 5 _**v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83]**_ , this Court has held that the predominant factor for determination 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. 8. 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 not to remove the land from the Data Bank. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P9 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 2[nd] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P8 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 concerned for KSRSEC report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of W.P (C) No.4901 of 2024 6 this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** bng W.P (C) No.4901 of 2024 7 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4901/2024** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RS.6/BEING REVENUE TAX PAID IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER'S FATHER DATED 2/8/99 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICE, KALADY - Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RS.412/DATED 31/3/2006 - Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY KALADY VILLAGE OFFICER FOR RS.20/- DATED 26/8/2008 - Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 20/03/2013 - Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROFESSIONAL TAX RECEIPT DATED 20/03/2013 - Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH NO.360/21 DATED 20/7/2021 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER KALADY - Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE SHOWING THE ABOVE DETAILS ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7/1/2022 - Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM. 5 DATED 9/3/2022 - Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12/4/2023 - Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 5/1/2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT - Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16/1/2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT - Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 23/1/2024 ISSUED BY W.P (C) No.4901 of 2024 8 THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23/1/2024