John Kurian @ Shibu v. District Collector, Pathanamthitta; Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvalla; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Koipuram Grama Panchayat; Village Officer, Koipuram Village Office

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 8437 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **JOHN KURIAN @ SHIBU AGED 65 YEARS S/O. JOHN, PLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA KARA, UPPUTHARA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685505** **BY ADVS. BIJU .C. ABRAHAM BASIL MATHEW THOMAS C.ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR 2ND FLOOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689645** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALIKARA ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689101** - **3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUVALLA - KUMBAZHA HIGHWAY, PULLAD, THIRUVALLA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AGRICULTURE OFFICE, KOIPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689548** **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KOIPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE, STATE HIGHWAY 7, KOTTAYAM-KOZHENCHERY ROAD, PULLAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689548** ## **SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 8437 OF 2024 : 2 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 6.7 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.379/3-2-1 of Koipuram Village, Thiruvalla Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008' for short). However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank prepared **WP(C) NO. 8437 OF 2024 : 3 :** under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2008' for short). The petitioner therefore filed an application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of 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.P3 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the LLMC has recommended to retain the property in the Data Bank and therefore cannot be removed from the Data Bank. 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, 2008 and the binding precedents of this Court. It is also contended that the RDO should have called for a **WP(C) NO. 8437 OF 2024 : 4 :** report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (for short, '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 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 **WP(C) NO. 8437 OF 2024 : 5 :** prepared by Central/State Scientific Technological institutions and pass appropriate orders on the application. On a perusal of Ext.P3, 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 upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and the recommendation of the LLMC 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 ## **WP(C) NO. 8437 OF 2024 : 6 :** 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 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. Further, this Court in **Aparna Sasi Menon** v. **Revenue Divisional** **WP(C) NO. 8437 OF 2024 : 7 :** **Officer** [2023 (6) KHC 83] 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. 7. 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. 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.P3 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 2[nd] respondent, the Revenue **WP(C) NO. 8437 OF 2024 : 8 :** Divisional Officer to reconsider the application in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision after considering the KSRSEC report to be obtained at the expense of the petitioner and other relevant factors mentioned in Rule 4(4F), 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 this writ petition along with the copy of the judgment before the RDO. ## The writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB **WP(C) NO. 8437 OF 2024 : 9 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 555/2000 DATED 12/4/2000 OF VENNIKULAM SRO** **Exhibit P2** **A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24/1/2024 FOR THE PERIOD 2023-2024** **Exhibit P3** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/10/2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P4** **PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE LAND COVERED BY EXT. P1 AND ITS SURROUNDINGS** **Exhibit P5** **A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/10/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO. 9090/2023**