John David v. District Collector, Civil Station, Palakkad; Revenue Divisional Officer, Civil Station, Palakkad; Principal Agricultural Officer, Office of the Principal Agricultural Officer, Civil Station, Palakkad; Village Officer, Kizhakkencherry‑I Village, Alathur, Palakkad; Agricultural Officer, Kizhakkencherry, Alathur; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Kizhakkencherry Grama Panchayat, rep. by its Convener

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO.37973 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` JOHN DAVID, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.DAVID.K.JOHN, KOONAMPLACKAL HOUSE, PREMIER ROAD, OULLURKKARA, MANNUTHY.P.O, THRISSUR-680651. ``` ``` BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.`** - **`2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.`** - **`3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHAKKENCHERRY-I VILLAGE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678722.`** - **`5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678722.`** - **`6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KIZHAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KIZHAKKENCHERRY.P.O, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678722. REP.BY ITS CONVENER.`** - **`BY SR.GP.SRI.E.G.GORDEN`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.37973 of 2022 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the 2[nd] respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer [RDO]. ``` ``` 2. Petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 0.6384 Hectares of land comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.502/5 and 503/9 in Block No.42 of Kizhakkencherry-I Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad District. ``` ``` 3. According to the petitioner, the said property will not come within the definition of paddy land or wetland. However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank prepared under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 as paddy land. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application in Form 5 under ``` W.P.(C) No.37973 of 2022 3 ``` the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity, ‘the Act,2008’] to remove the said property from the Data Bank. The RDO, by Ext.P5 order, rejected the application on the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer who reported that as per the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre [for short, ‘the KSRSEC’] the property was suitable for paddy cultivation till 2011 and the property is not converted before 2008 and that the land cannot be removed from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 4. The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 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. It is also contended that the RDO has ``` W.P.(C) No.37973 of 2022 4 ``` not by himself verified the Data Bank with any scientific data before rejecting the application. 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. 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 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.37973 of 2022 5 ``` perusal of Ext.P5, 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 refused 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. In Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from the ``` W.P.(C) No.37973 of 2022 6 ``` 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 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.37973 of 2022 7 ``` 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, relying on the reports of the Agricultural Officer and KSRSEC. None of the parameters for consideration of a Form 5 application has been taken into account while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P5 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 2[nd] respondent, the RDO, to reconsider the application in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after considering the KSRSEC report and other relevant factors mentioned in Rule 4(4F), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy ``` W.P.(C) No.37973 of 2022 8 ``` of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 2[nd]respondent for due compliance. ``` ``` The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` ``` sp/22/03/2024 ``` W.P.(C) No.37973 of 2022 9 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1322/2020 OFSRO,VADAKKENCHERRYDATED 21.07.2020. Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.4.2022 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. ``` ``` Exhibit P4PHOTOGRAPHSOFTHEPETITIONER'S PROPERTY. ``` ``` Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RDOPKD/ 698/2022J5 DATED 27.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :-`** ``` EXHIBIT R2(a)TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURALOFFICERBEARING NO.KZY/32/07/2021-22FOLLOWINGTHE MEETING OF LLMC HELD ON 22-11-2021 ``` ``` EXHIBIT R2(b) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT PERTAINING TO SY NO.502/3 AND 503 OF KIZHAKKANCHERRY VILLAGE . ``` ``` EXHIBIT R2(c) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PRODUCTION BONUS REGISTER ```