Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions: Ext.P1 set aside; ...

Jyothilakshmi G. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Parakkunnam; Local Level Monitoring Committee Kodumbu Gram Panchayat; State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.7272 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date
2024-03-04
Court Decision / Holding
The court held Ext.P1 unsustainable and set it aside. It directed the RDO to reconsider the Form 5 application in accordance with law and to take a decision after obtaining the KSRSEC report, with the petitioner bearing the cost of the KSRSEC report and considering other relevant Rule 4(4F) factors. The RDO must obtain the KSRSEC report within two weeks and decide within two months from receiving the report. The petitioner is to apply for the KSRSEC report within two weeks of this judgment, and both parties must comply by producing copies of the writ petition and judgment. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions: Ext.P1 set aside; RDO to reconsider Form 5 with KSRSEC report within two months; petitioner to obtain KSRSEC report within two weeks; compliance with copy of judgment and writ petition to be provided to the RDO; orders to be issued in accordance with Rule 4(4F).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Jyothilakshmi G. (Petitioner)

Respondents

  • Revenue Divisional Officer, The Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parakkunnam, Vidyut Nagar, Palakkad, Kerala
  • Local Level Monitoring Committee Kodumbu Gram Panchayat represented by its Convenor, Agricultural Officer, Palakkad-Chittur Road, Aiswarya Nagar, Kodumbu, Palakkad, Kerala
  • State of Kerala represented Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Srikanth Thamban
  • • Sravan M.S.
  • • Abhilash B.
  • • R.Vipin
  • • Firdouse K.K.
  • • Arun B.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smt. Devishree, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jyothilakshmi G., owner of 0.0166 hectares in Sy.No.829/26, Block No.46, Kodumbu Village, Palakkad, challenges Ext.P1, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting her Form 5 application for removal of land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and Rules. She contends the land is not paddy land or wetland as defined, and thus should be excluded from Data Bank, arguing the LLMC’s recommendation and the RDO’s reliance on an Agricultural Officer’s report are improper, lacking independent assessment. She sought a KSRSEC report to determine land status as on 12.08.2008, the Act’s date of coming into force. The court reviews prior rulings emphasizing an independent assessment by the RDO, its obligation to consider the land’s status as on 2008, and to verify through satellite imagery if needed (Rules 4(4E), 4(4F)). The Court notes that the RDO relied solely on post-2008 cultivation and LLMC inputs, and set aside Ext.P1, directing the RDO to reconsider Form 5 after obtaining a KSRSEC report, with costs to be borne by the petitioner for the report, and to proceed within two months. The petition is disposed of with these directions, requiring compliance by the RDO and petitioner.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 4(4E) of the Rules, 2008Rule 4(4F) of the Rules, 2008Rule 4(d) of the Rules, 2008 (Form 5)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues Ext.P1 is vitiated by non-application of mind and contravenes the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and binding precedents. She asserts that the RDO should have called for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) to ascertain the land’s nature as on 12.08.2008, and that Form 5 should be adjudicated with independent verification rather than relying solely on Agricultural Officer’s post-2008 report and LLMC’s recommendation. She seeks removal from Data Bank on the ground that the land did not fit paddy/wetland criteria on the date of coming into force of the Act. She also relies on decisions prompting independent assessment by the RDO and adherence to Rule 4(4F) regarding satellite/image verification.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on the RDO’s Ext.P1 order, which was based on the Agricultural Officer’s report that the land was cultivated with paddy after 2008 and on the LLMC’s recommendation not to remove. They contend that Form 5 applications must be examined under the Act and Rules, with verification as mandated by Rule 4(4E)/(4F), and that the LLMC and officer reports are valid inputs for the RDO’s decision. They argue the Data Bank status should be maintained unless independent assessment demonstrates adverse effects on paddy cultivation or local wetlands.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala2022 (7) KHC 591PositiveCourt relied on this decision to require considering the land’s status as on the date of coming into force of the Act and its suitability for paddy cultivation, guiding independent assessment by the RDO.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer2023 (4) KLT 270PositiveHolding that removal from the Data Bank cannot be decided merely on LLMC’s input; the RDO must independently assess status and impact on paddy cultivation.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer2023 (6) KHC 83PositiveThis decision emphasizes the predominant factor of whether land is feasible for paddy cultivation, guiding the Form-5 evaluation.

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 Jyothilakshmi G. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Parakkunnam; Local Level Monitoring Committee Kodumbu Gram Panchayat; State of Kerala 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 4[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO.7272 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` JYOTHILAKSHMI G, AGED 49 YEARS W/O.MUTHUKUMAR, DHARMA NAGAR, KODUMBU P.O, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678551 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRIKANTH THAMBAN SRAVAN M.S. ABHILASH.B R.VIPIN FIRDOUSE.K.K ARUN B. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678001`** - **`2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KODUMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-CHITTUR ROAD, AISWARYA NAGAR, KODUMBU, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678551`** - **`3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001`** ## **`BY SMT. DEVISHREE, GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.7272 of 2024 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the 1[st] respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer [RDO]. ``` ``` 2. Petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0166 Hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.829/26 in Block No.46 of Kodumbu Village, Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad 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 (for brevity, ‘the Act, 2008’). However, the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed an application in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and ``` W.P.(C) No.7272 of 2024 3 ``` Wetland Rules, 2008 [for brevity, ‘the Rules, 2008’] before the RDO to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the RDO vide Ext.P1 order stating that on enquiry conducted through Agricultural Officer, the Agricultural Officer has reported that the land is cultivated with paddy after 2008 and that the Local Level Monitoring Committee [LLMC] has recommended not to remove the land from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 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 report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and ``` W.P.(C) No.7272 of 2024 4 ``` 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 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 ``` 5 W.P.(C) No.7272 of 2024 ``` satellite images prepared by Central/State Scientific Technological Institutions and pass appropriate orders on the application. On a perusal of Ext.P1, 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.7272 of 2024 6 ``` 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. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court ``` W.P.(C) No.7272 of 2024 7 ``` 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. ``` ``` 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.P1 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent, the RDO, to reconsider the application in Form 5 in accordance ``` W.P.(C) No.7272 of 2024 8 ``` with law and take a decision in the matter 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 the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 1[st] respondent for due compliance. ``` ``` The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` sp/04/03/2024 ``` W.P.(C) No.7272 of 2024 9 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, HAVING FILE NO. RDOPKD/3500/2022-23 DATED 27.06.2022 ``` ``` Exhibit P2 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH/MAP ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER HAVING DOCUMENT NO.82/2024 ```