High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-09Writ petition disposed of with direction to rec...

Job aged 65 years s/o Mathew v. District Collector, Kozhikode; Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Kodenjeri Grama Panchayath; Village Officer, Kodenjeri; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing & Environment Centre (KSREC)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 5141 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Judgment Date: 2024-02-09
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the petitioner’s Form 5 application and to pass a reasoned order based on Ext.P2 KSRSEC report, the observations of this Court, and binding precedents, within two months of receipt of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with direction to reconsider Form 5 application by the RDO within two months, guided by Ext.P2 and binding precedents.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Job aged 65 years s/o Mathew

Respondents

The District Collector, Kozhikode Civil Station (P.O), Eranhippalam, Kozhikode District, PIN – 673020
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode Civil Station (P.O), Eranhippalam, Kozhikode District, PIN – 673020
The Local Level Monitoring Committee Kodenjeri Grama Panchayath, represented by its Convenor/Agricultural Officer, Kodenjeri, Kozhikode District, PIN – 673580
Village Officer, Village Office Kodnenjeri, Kozhikode District, PIN – 673580
The Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing & Environment Centre (KSREC) Vikas Bhavan, C-BLOCK, Thiruvananthapuram District, PIN – 695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SANTHARAM.P
• REKHA ARAVIND
• P.G.GOKULNATH

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, a landowner in Kozhikode district, challenges Ext.P3, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), which rejected his Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to remove his land from the Data Bank. He contends that his 13.37 acres of land in Sy. No. 41/21, Thamarassery Taluk, Koodathayi Village, is not a paddy land or wet land, and that the Data Bank entry misclassifies it as such. The KSRSEC report reportedly indicated the land’s status as mixed vegetation/plantation/trees in 2006, and Ext.P3 relied on the Village Officer’s report without independent assessment of the land’s status as of the Act’s coming into force in 2008. The petitioner argues that Ext.P3 vitiates the provisions of the Act and that binding precedents require independent assessment by the RDO, not mere acceptance of LLMC’s stance. The Court cites Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO to underscore the need to assess whether land was capable of paddy cultivation on the date of the Act and the potential environmental impact. The Court sets aside Ext.P3 and directs the RDO to reconsider the Form 5 application in light of Ext.P2 and binding precedents within two months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P3 is vitiated by non-application of mind and is contrary to the provisions of the Act and binding precedents of this Court. He asserts that the KSRSEC report was misquoted and that the RDO must independently evaluate whether the land was paddy land on the date of the Act and whether removal from the Data Bank would affect paddy cultivation or wetlands. The Form 5 application should be considered in light of binding precedents enforcing an independent assessment rather than mere reliance on LLMC recommendations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Ext.P3 aligns with the KSRSEC report and LLMC’s position; the land’s status and environmental considerations justify retaining it in the Data Bank, especially since the land was not converted before 2008. They argue that removal could adversely affect environmental interests and wetlands, and the RDO’s decision should stand absent a contrary finding. The Respondents rely on the Village Officer’s report and the absence of development as justification for the decision to reject Form 5.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	Cited to require the RDO to assess whether land was paddy land on the date of the Act and its suitability for paddy cultivation, forming part of the Court’s guidance on independent factual assessment.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Cited to emphasize that an RDO cannot dismiss Form 5 merely on LLMC’s determination; there must be independent assessment of land status and potential adverse effects on paddy cultivation.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (6) KHC 83	Positive	Cited for the principle that the predominant factor for Form 5 is whether paddy cultivation is possible and feasible on the land sought to be excluded.

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 Job aged 65 years s/o Mathew v. District Collector, Kozhikode; Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Kodenjeri Grama Panchayath; Village Officer, Kodenjeri; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing & Environment Centre (KSREC) 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 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA,** ## **1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 5141 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER/S:** JOB AGED 65 YEARS S/O MATHEW, RESIDING AT PERINJERIL HOUSE, KODENJERI VILLAGE, KODENJERI DESOM, P.O KODENJERI, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673580 BY ADVS. SANTHARAM.P REKHA ARAVIND P.G.GOKULNATH ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION (P.O), ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673020 - 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION (P.O), ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673020 - 3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KODENJERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR/AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KODENJERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673580 - 4 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE KODENJERI, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673580 - 5 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING & ENVIRONMENT CENTRE (KSREC) VIKAS BHAVAN, C-BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695001 WPC 5141/2024 ``` 2 ``` ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SRI. VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHY. **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 5141/2024 ``` 3 ``` ## Dated this the 9[th] day of February, 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 order whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 13.37 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No.41/21 in Thamarassery Taluk, Koodathayi Village, Palona Amsom Desom of Kozhikode District, by virtue of sale deed dated 21.06.2021. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the definition of paddy land or wet land. However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Rules, 2008 as paddy land. The petitioner states that as per the KSRSEC report, the land was observed under mixed vegitation/plantation/trees in WPC 5141/2024 ``` 4 ``` 2006 data. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application in Form 5 under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008’) to remove the property from the Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by Ext.P3 order, rejected the application on the ground that, as per the report of the Village Officer, there are no buildings in the land and the land was not converted before 2008 and if the property is removed from the Data Bank, that will affect the environment. Referring to KSRSEC report, it is stated that she is convinced that the property is not converted before 2008. 4. The petitioner impugns Ext.P3 contending, _inter alia,_ that the same is vitiated by non-application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act and the binding precedents of this Court. It is also contended that the KSRSEC report was misquoted. 5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wet land is as to the nature of WPC 5141/2024 ``` 5 ``` the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. On a perusal of Ext.P3, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of the property as on the date coming into force of the Act, 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied solely upon the report of the Village Officer to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. 6. This Court has held 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 on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. 7. 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 WPC 5141/2024 ``` 6 ``` 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. 8. 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. I find that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the RDO in interpreting the report of the Village Officer as well as the KSRSEC. Accordingly, I set WPC 5141/2024 ``` 7 ``` aside Ext.P3 with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application of the petitioner in Form 5 and take a decision in the matter on the basis of Ext.P2 KSRSEC report and the observation of this Court and the binding precedents, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** al/-.09.02.2024. WPC 5141/2024 ``` 8 ``` ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5141/2024** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 21.06.2021 REGISTERED BEFORE SRO, KODENJERI Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NIL DATED SUBMITTED TO 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.05.2023 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH AS EXHIBIT P4 (A) OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY NIL DATED. Exhibit P4 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH AS EXHIBIT P4 (B) OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY NIL DATED. Exhibit P4 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH AS EXHIBIT P4 (C) OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY NIL DATED. Exhibit P4 (d) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH AS EXHIBIT P4 (D) OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY NIL DATED. Exhibit P4 (e) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH AS EXHIBIT P4 (E) OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY NIL DATED. Exhibit P4 (f) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH AS EXHIBIT P4 (F) OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY NIL DATED. Exhibit P4 (g) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH (G) OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY NIL DATED. Exhibit P4 (h) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH AS EXHIBIT P4 (H) OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY NIL DATED.