High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-19Writ petition allowed in part; Ext.P5 set aside...

Juhi Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 6168 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-02-19
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the petitioner’s Form 5 application, based on Ext.P4 KSREC report and a site visit, after taking into account the observations in this judgment and binding precedents. The RDO must decide within two months from receipt of a copy of the judgment, and the petitioner must furnish a copy of the petition with the judgment before Respondent 2.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed in part; Ext.P5 set aside; RDO to reconsider Form 5 under Rule 4(d) based on KSREC Ext.P4 report and site visit; decision to be made within two months; copy of judgment to be produced before the 2nd respondent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Juhi Thomas

Respondents

State of Kerala
Revenue Divisional Officer
Village Officer
Agricultural Officer

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Baby Thomas
• Joby Joseph
• George T.J
• Mariamma Joseph
• Indrajith S Kaimal
• Alicia Jose
• Aiswaryara j

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT.R.DEVI SHRI, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Juhi Thomas, seeks the removal of a land plot from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and its Rules. She challenges Ext.P5, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting her Form 5 application under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, which sought deletion of 12 ares of land from Sy.Nos.139/6-2, 138/4-2 and 138/2-2 in Kuzhippilly Village, Kochi Taluk. The RDO refused removal, relying on an Agricultural Officer’s report and the LLMC recommendation, and noting that KSRSEC data labeled the land as paddy land in 2007, while 2009 data indicated the land was filled. The petitioner argues the decision suffers from non‑application of mind, misinterpretation of the KSRSEC report, and contravention of the Act, 2008 and binding precedents. The court references Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022) 7 KHC 591, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO (2023) 4 KLT 270, Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO (2023) 6 KHC 83, Adani Infrastructures & Developers v. State of Kerala (2014) 1 KHC 685, and Sudheesh v. RDO (2023) 2 KLT 386 to emphasize independent, objective assessment focusing on the land’s status as of the Act’s commencement and its suitability for paddy cultivation. The court sets aside Ext.P5 and directs the RDO to reconsider the Form 5 application, basing the decision on Ext.P4 KSREC report and a site visit, guided by this judgment and binding precedents, within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 4(d) of the Rules, 2008Section 2(xii) of the Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Twin conditions for paddy land: land must be suitable for paddy cultivation and must be left uncultivated/fallow (Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer).
Predominant factor test: the determination should focus on whether the land is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible (Aparna Sasi Menon).
Independent assessment by RDO is required; cannot rely solely on LLMC or reports (Arthasasthra Ventures; Muraleedharan Nair).
If land is included as paddy land but is uncultivated/left fallow and is not suitable, it may exit the definition of paddy land (Adani Infrastructures).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that Ext.P5 is vitiated by non‑application of mind and misinterpretation of the KSREC report. She submits that the land, as of the date of the Act’s coming into force, was not paddy land and was wrongly included in the Data Bank. The Form-5 application under Rule 4(d) of the Rules, 2008, seeks removal of land that was already unsuitable for paddy cultivation. The 2009 data showing land filled undermines the RDO’s basis in Ext.P5, and the RDO should independently assess the land’s status, considering the 2008 commencement and the twin tests of 2008 status and suitability for cultivation. The petitioner relies on the cited precedents to urge an objective, land-status determination and a fresh evaluation including a site visit and Ext.P4 KSREC report, within a two-month period. She also contends that data and reports were not weighed properly, and the decision harmed her rights as landowner.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the land remained paddy land as per the 2007 KSRSEC report and is labeled in village records as such, with 2009 data reflecting a state that may not compel removal. They emphasize LLMC’s recommendation and the need for caution in removing land from the Data Bank so as not to adversely affect paddy cultivation and wetlands in the area. They argue that the RDO acted within the statutory framework by relying on expert reports and LLMC recommendations, and that independent reassessment is not mandatory unless a clear legal error is shown. The respondents urge dismissal of the petition.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	Used to require independent assessment by the RDO and evaluation of land status as of the Act’s commencement and its suitability for paddy cultivation.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Emphasizes that dismissal cannot rest solely on LLMC’s stance; independent assessment is required.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, Irinjalakuda	2023 (6) KHC 83	Positive	Highlights that predominant factor is whether the land is capable of paddy cultivation.
Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others v. State of Kerala & Others	2014 (1) KHC 685	Positive	If land is suitable for paddy cultivation, uncultivated, and enclosed by reclaimed lands, it may exit the definition of paddy land.
Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (2) KLT 386	Positive	Defines the twin conditions for inclusion under the paddy land definition: suitability and left fallow.

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 Juhi Thomas v. State of Kerala 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 MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 6168 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **JUHI THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS W/O K.J. THOMAS KURIKAL HOUSE, VAZHAKALA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024** **BY ADVS. BABY THOMAS JOBY JOSEPH GEORGE T.J MARIAMMA JOSEPH INDRAJITH S KAIMAL ALICIA JOSE AISWARYARAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031**| |**2**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER**| ||**OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**CIVIL STATION, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001**| |**3**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER**| ||**VILLAGE OFFICE, KUZHUPPILLY, KOCHI,**| ||**ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682501**| |**4**|**THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER**| ||**KRISHI BHAVAN, KUZHUPPILLY, KOCHI,**| ||**ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682501**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT.R.DEVI SHRI, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 6168 OF 2024 : 2 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 12 Ares of property in Sy.Nos.139/6-2, 138/4-2 and 138/2-2 of Kuzhippilly Village, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District. 3. According to the petitioner, the said properties will not come within the definition 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 **WP(C) NO. 6168 OF 2024 : 3 :** Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules,2008' for short). The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P3 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 Revenue Divisional Officer, by Ext.P5 order, rejected the application on the ground that as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the land is lying close to pokkali paddy field and there are coconut trees on the boundary and as per the KSRSEC report, the land was paddy land in 2007. However, as per 2009 data, the land is seen filled with earth and therefore, the LLMC decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 contending, **WP(C) NO. 6168 OF 2024 : 4 :** _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 KSRSEC report was misinterpreted and entered a finding ignoring the data of 2009. 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.P5, 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 the LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. **WP(C) NO. 6168 OF 2024 : 5 :** The RDO has not entered a finding as to whether the land was suitable for paddy cultivation as on 2008. 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. 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 **WP(C) NO. 6168 OF 2024 : 6 :** 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. 11. In **Aparna Sasi Menon** v. **RDO, Irinjalakuda [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. **WP(C) NO. 6168 OF 2024 : 7 :** 10. In **Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others reported** in [2014 (1) KHC 685], this Court has held that if the land suitable for paddy cultivation is uncultivated and left fallow and if the said land is included as paddy land in the village records and if the property is locked on all four sides with lands which were reclaimed before the coming into force of the Act, 2008, such land cannot be said as suitable for cultivation and may come outside the definition of paddy land. In **Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (2) KLT 386], this Court held as follows: “Going by the definition in S.2(xii) of “paddy land” in the Act, 2008, to bring in a land within the definition of paddy **WP(C) NO. 6168 OF 2024 : 8 :** land, it should be suitable for paddy cultivation, but uncultivated and left fallow. Just for the reason that the property is left fallow, the land cannot be brought within the definition of paddy land but the Revenue Divisional Officer should be satisfied that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation and left fallow and therefore on only satisfaction of the said twin conditions that a land could be treated as paddy land coming under the definition of S.2(xii) of the Act, 2008.” 12. I find that there is total non application of mind on the part of the RDO while interpreting the reports of the Agricultural Officer as well as the KSRSEC. Ext.P5 order is based on inferences as to the nature of land as on 2008, whereas 2009 data says the land is filled up. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P5 with a direction to the Revenue Divisional **WP(C) NO. 6168 OF 2024 : 9 :** Officer to reconsider the application of the petitioner in Form No.5 and take a decision in the matter on the basis of Ext.P4 KSRSEC report and site visit 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 petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with the copy of the judgment before the 2[nd] respondent. The writ petition is disposed with the above direction. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB **WP(C) NO. 6168 OF 2024 : 10 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 08.02.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.06.2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO. A/172/2015/KSREC/005830/22 OBTAINED FROM THE KSREC DATED 30.07.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. K193996/2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2023 Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE EXISTENCE OF AGED COCONUT TREES IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY**