Litty Mathew v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala; Agricultural Officer, Kuravilangad; Village Officer, Kuravilangad

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 11322 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` LITTY MATHEW AGED 56 YEARS W/O. MATHEW JACOB KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O, PALA , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 613, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. MATHEW JACOB, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. JACOB MATHEW, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O, PALA , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 613. ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.K.SOYUZ E.V.BABYCHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA RDO OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 575.`** - **`2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KURAVILANGAD KUAVILANGAD P. O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 633.`** - **`3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KURAVILANGAD VILLAGE VILLAGE OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, KURAVILANGAD P.O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 633. SMT. - R.DEVISHRI - GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C).No.11322 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The petitioner is in joint ownership and in possession of an extent of 22.20 Ares of land in Block No.009, Re.Sy.Nos.587/2-8, 587/2-9 and 587/9-1 of Kuravilangad Village, Meenachil Taluk in Kottayam 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, the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules’) before the ``` WP(C).No.11322 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P6 stating that as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the property was fully converted only after 2008 and recommended not to remove the property from the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 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 as per the report of the KSRSEC, the land is not a paddy land as on 2008. It is also stated that the Village Officer vide Ext.P5 report has stated that the land was converted before 2008 and can be removed from the Data Bank. However ignoring all this Ext.P6 is passed. 5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a ``` WP(C).No.11322 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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 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.P6, 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 solely relied upon the report of the Agricultural Officer to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. ``` WP(C).No.11322 OF 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 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 the 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 ``` WP(C).No.11322 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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. 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 ``` WP(C).No.11322 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` passing the impugned order. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P6 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P3 application in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision after considering Ext.P4 KSRSEC report and Ext.P5 report of the Village Officer 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 a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the Revenue Divisional Officer for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- ## **`MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE`** SPR ``` WP(C).No.11322 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.10.2023 OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF KURAVILANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 21.10.2020. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.02.2022 UPLOADED BY THE PETITIONER 'S POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM NO.5. EXHIBIT P4TRUECOPYOFTHEREPORTNO. A/172/2015/KSREC/007332/23DATED 13.12.2023. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO 4/2022 FORM 5 DATED 10.06.2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 987/2024 DATED 04.03.2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE PETITIONER. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.`**