M. Abdurahiman v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna; Agriculture Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Vazhakkad; Village Officer, Vazhakkad Village, Kondotty Taluk; SMT. Devishri R., GP

WP(C) NO. 4064 OF 2024 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 4064 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER/S:** M.C.ABDURAHIMAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O. M.C.MUHAMMED, MANNARCHOLA HOUSE, CHEEKODE.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 673745 BY ADVS. U.K.DEVIDAS S.K.SREELAKSHMY ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER RDO OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322 2 AGRICULTURE OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, VAZHAKKAD, VAZHAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673638 3 VILLAGE OFFICER VAZHAKKAD VILLAGE, KONDOTTY TALUK , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673638 SMT.DEVISHRI R., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 4064 OF 2024 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 4064 of 2024 -------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order by which an application in Form 5 as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules is dismissed by the 1[st] respondent. The petitioner filed an application for the removal of 24.21 ares of land comprised in survey No. 153/9 and 18.50 ares of land comprised in survey No. 153/10 of Vazhakkad Village in Kondotty Taluk from the Data Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that 1[st] respondent did not call for the report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). The 2[nd] respondent has submitted a report against the actual facts and without call for a report from KSREC to the 1[st] WP(C) NO. 4064 OF 2024 3 respondent is the submission. It is also submitted that as per Ext.P4, the 3[rd] respondent earlier recommended for conversion. It is also submitted that even though the land owned by the petitioner is not fit for paddy cultivation and it is already converted. The 1[st] respondent is erred in rejecting his application without calling for a report from KSREC. The petitioner relied Exts.P7 and P8 judgments. Hence, this writ petition is filed with following prayers : i. “a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P5 order and quash the same. ii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to first respondent to allow the Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner under Form 5 of the Act, 2008 iii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the first respondent to reconsider Ext. P2 application submitted by the petitioner under Form 5 of the Act, 2008 on the basis of the Ext.P4 report of third respondent, report of KSREC and satellite picture of the property after afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a reasonable time. iv. Such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case. iv. a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular document produced with this writ petition” [sic] WP(C) NO. 4064 OF 2024 4 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. This Court perused Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 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.P5 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. 4. 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 of such findings, the impugned order is WP(C) NO. 4064 OF 2024 5 unsustainable. 5. 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. 6. 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, it is mandatory on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer to call for a report from the KSREC to ascertain the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 when the Act came into force. It is submitted that the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 can be ascertained only through a scientific process. 7. After going through the impugned order, I am of the WP(C) NO. 4064 OF 2024 6 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 petitioners 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: a) Ext.P5 order is set aside. b) The 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. c) The petitioner is free to submit an application before the appropriate 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. WP(C) NO. 4064 OF 2024 7 d) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS WP(C) NO. 4064 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4064/2024** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE VAZHAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.09.2022 IN FORM NO.5 UNDER SECTION 27A OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDYLAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 15.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 09.07.2020 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 13.07.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR (LR) KONDOTTY Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.05.2023 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P7 RUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.12.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.4388/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.203 IN W.P.(C) NO.20933/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT