Jose K.P. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; Mattoor Village Office; Agricultural Officer, Mattoor

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 43192 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER(S):** JOSE K.P AGED 57 YEARS S/O PAULOSE KALATHIPARAMBIL (H) NEERIKOD P.O ERNAKULAM, PIN - 685311 BY ADV. M.S.SHAMLA ## **RESPONDENT(S):** 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MATTOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574 3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AGRICULTURE OFFICE, MATTOOR, ERNAKLAM, PIN - 683574 BY ADV. SMT. SHEEBA G, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.43192 OF 2023 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.43192 of 2023 ------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: _“_ a). issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash Exhibit P8 order of rejection issued by the first respondent after calling for the records leading to the issuance of the same. b). Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to delete an extent of 6.40 Ares of property in Resurvey No. 209/12-2,209/1-2-3 and 209/1-3-3of Block No. 27 of the second respondent village from the data bank. c). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in exhibit P6 application submitted in Form no .5 for correction of the WP(C) NO.43192 OF 2023 3 mistake in the data bank submitted by the petitioner afresh in view of the relevant provisions and government orders. d) Declare to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 after considering KSREC Report. e). Declare that an extent of 6.40 Ares of property in Resurvey No. 209/1-22,209/1-2-3 and 209/1-3-3of Block No. 27 of the second respondent village is not a land to be included in the data bank. f) To dispense with the production of the English translation of Exhibits which are in vernacular language; and g) Grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. _”[SIC]_ 2. Petitioner is the owner and in possession of an extent of 2 Ares 04 Square meters (5.04 cents) of land comprised in Re-Survey No.209/1-2-2, an extent of 2 Ares 3 Square meters (5.68 Cents) of land comprised in Re -Survey No.209/1-2-3, an aggregate of 6 Ares 40 Saqure meters(15.81 cents) of land by virtue of Sale Deed No.2188/2014 dated 16/07/2014 WP(C) NO.43192 OF 2023 4 and an extent of 2 Ares 33 Square meters (5.75 cents) of land comprised in Re-Survey No.209/1-3-3 in Mattoor Village of Aluva Taluk by virtue of Sale Deed No.2581/2014 dated 26.08.2014 of Sreemoolanagaram SRO. The subject land was converted before the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 (for short 'Act 2008') and there are biluding in the property is the submission of the petitioner. The property is included in the Data Bank as 'Partially converted Land'. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 Form-5 application on 30.06.2022 as per Act 2008. The 1[st] respondent rejected Form-5 application without considering the factual situation of the property, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering KSREC report is the submission. Hence this Writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the WP(C) NO.43192 OF 2023 5 ## petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 is not a speaking order. Except relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the contention of the petitioner is not adverted while passing Ext.P8 order. In _**Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court observed that, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that Local Level Monitoring Commitee has decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank. 5. 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 the Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question and nearby paddy lands or that, it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the area and in the absence WP(C) NO.43192 OF 2023 6 of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. 6. In _**Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2023 (5) KLT 432], this Court observed that the predominant factor for consideration while considering Form 5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from the Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible or feasible. 7. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is passed in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not applied his mind and simply accepted the report. It is also submitted that, the KSREC report is not properly considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The contention of the petitioner is that the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 is not ascertained properly as per scientific process. WP(C) NO.43192 OF 2023 7 8. After going through the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 1[st] respondent while passing the order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: 1. Ext.P8 order is set aside. 2. The 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider Form 5 application submitted - by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. The petitioner is free to submit an application before the appropriate WP(C) NO.43192 OF 2023 8 authority for getting the KSREC report within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and if such an application is filed, the authority concerned will do the needful to obtain the same, in accordance with law. If KSREC report is available, the same will be considered by the 1[st] respondent. 4. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO.43192 OF 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43192/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2188/2014 DATED 16/07/2014 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2581/2014 DATED 26.08.2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2020-2021 DATED 28/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR2021-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED24/06/2022 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK DATED 31/05/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 BEARING NO 54/2022/913186 DATED 30/06/2022 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN WPC NO.30940 OF 2022 DATED 28/10/2022 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING FILE NO.4074/2023 DATED 03/06/2023 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 23/02/2022 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE