Kishore Kumar G. v. The District Collector, Palakkad and Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 9774 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` KISHORE KUMAR G. AGED 38 YEARS S/O. R. GOPINATHAN, RADHA NIVAS, VELLANARA, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 506. ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.R.RAJKUMAR JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN R.K.RAKESH NANDANA BABU T. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 013.`** - **`2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 013.`** - **`3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR) CHITTOOR TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR - GOPALAMPURAM ROAD, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 101.`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KOLLENGODE II VILLAGE OFFICE, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 506.`** - **`5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLLENGODE, KOLLENGODE SOUTH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 506.`** ``` WP(C).No.9774 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 6LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678 506. SMT. DEVISHREE - GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C).No.9774 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 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 5.24 Ares of land in Block No.14, Re.Sy.No.135/12 of Kollengode Village II, Chittur Taluk in Palakkad District. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wet land as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008’). However, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy ``` WP(C).No.9774 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules’) 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.P5 stating that as per the report of the Agricultural Officer it is convinced that the subject land was converted after 2008 and is suitable for paddy cultivation and need not be removed from the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging 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. 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 provides that, on receipt of the application in Form 5, the RDO shall ``` WP(C).No.9774 OF 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 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 to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. 6. This Court had 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 ``` WP(C).No.9774 OF 2024 ``` ## **`6`** 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, 2008 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 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 the 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 ``` WP(C).No.9774 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` impugned order is unsustainable. 7. In **Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has held 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 and feasible. 8. 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 Form 5 application has been taken into account while passing the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P5 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider Ext.P4 ``` WP(C).No.9774 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` 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 the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 2[nd] respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- ## **`MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE`** SPR ``` WP(C).No.9774 OF 2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO. KL09021100525/2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 18-03-2023. ``` - **`EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.76855276 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20-032023.`** - **`EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK OF THE KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH AS PER THE OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION NO.KGP/B4/5003/2021 DATED 15-02-2021.`** - **`EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER FORM 5 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES, 2008, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT THOUGH ONLINE WITH NO. 1/2023/1517766 DATED 12-04-2023.`** - **`EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: 10337/2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29-122023.`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT LAND SHOWING THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.`** ## **`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.`**