M. C. Rajesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala, 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.28486 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` M.C.RAJESH, AGED 47 YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN NAIR, MALAYIL HOUSE, KURINJI P.O, RAMAPURAM, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686576 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.K.SOYUZ E.V.BABYCHAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA RDO OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686575`** - **`2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (LLMC) KADANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KADANAD, ANTHINAD P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686651`** - **`3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KADANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADANAD, ANTHINAD P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686651`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE VILLAGE OFFICE, RAMAPURAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686576`** - **`5 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE 'C' BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033`** - **`BY SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC, KSREC SMT.DEVISREE, GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.28486 of 2023 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 18.38 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.28/1-2 in Block No.29 of Ramapuram Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District. The said property has been included in Exts.P2 & P4 Data Bank as converted land. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 Form 6 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for brevity, ‘the Rules, 2008’) for change of nature of the land under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity, ‘the Act, 2008’]. After the submission of Ext.P3 application, the land was included in the Data Bank and notified as per Ext.P4. On Ext.P3 application, the RDO has called for a report from the Village Officer and the ``` W.P.(C) No.28486 of 2023 3 ``` Village Officer submitted Ext.P7 report in terms of the Rules, 2008. In Ext.P7 it has been reported that the land was converted before commencement of the Act, 2008. The Local Level Monitoring Committee [LLMC] also submitted Ext.P5 report, wherein also it is stated that the property was converted before the commencement of Act, 2008 and the property can be excluded from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 2. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 application in Form 5 and the RDO called for reports from the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer. The Agricultural Officer submitted Ext.P8 report, whereby the petitioner was asked to remit the charges for the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre [for short, ‘the KSRSEC’] as such report is necessary. In Ext.P9 the LLMC has observed that as per the KSRSEC ``` 4 W.P.(C) No.28486 of 2023 ``` report, the property has to be retained as paddy land. On the basis of the reports of the Agricultural Officer, Village Officer, LLMC and the KSRSEC, the RDO passed Ext.P10 order, whereby the application of the petitioner in Form 5 was rejected and the property was ordered to be retained in the Data Bank. ``` ``` 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext.P10 on the ground that the same has been issued merely based on the report of the Village Officer, Agricultural Officer and the LLMC and there is no independent assessment of the nature of the property as on the date of commencement of the Act, 2008. According to the petitioner, Ext.P15 report of the KSRSEC shows that as on 2008, the property was not paddy land. The data of 2008 shows that the plot was boarded ``` W.P.(C) No.28486 of 2023 5 ``` by road on west and was observed predominantly by crops in the data of the year 2008. Ext.P15 report also shows that there was no paddy cultivation as on the date of commencement of the Act, 2008. Further, in Ext.P5 report of the LLMC, the LLMC had stated that the land was converted before 2008 and the property can be excluded from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 4. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P13 Acquisition Mahazar of the Special Tahsildar at the time of acquisition of a portion of the property of the petitioner, which shows that there were arecanut trees and other trees in the property, which shows the nature of the property in the year 2006. The petitioner also submits that the adjoining properties of the petitioner has already been removed from the Data Bank as per ``` W.P.(C) No.28486 of 2023 6 ``` orders of the RDO. ``` ``` 5. On a perusal of Ext.P10 it is seen that the RDO has not ascertained the exact nature of the property as on the date of commencement of the Act, 2008 and has not come to any conclusion as to whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. ``` ``` 6. This Court, inMuraleedharan 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.28486 of 2023 7 ``` 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. ``` ``` 7. 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. ``` ``` 8. In Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others ``` W.P.(C) No.28486 of 2023 8 ``` 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, such land cannot be said as suitable for cultivation and may come outside the definition of paddy land. ``` ``` In spite of the above decisions of this Court, the RDO has rejected the application of the petitioner without any independent assessment of the status of the land. Accordingly, Ext.P10 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to consider Ext.P6 application of the petitioner in Form 5 afresh, after taking into consideration the binding precedents, the ``` W.P.(C) No.28486 of 2023 9 ``` requirements under Rules 4(E) and 4(F) of the Rules, 2008 and in accordance with law. While taking a decision, the 1[st] respondent shall also take into consideration the observations in Ext.P15 KSRSEC report. A fresh decision has to be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` ``` sp/14/03/2024 ``` W.P.(C) No.28486 of 2023 10 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-`** - **`Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.08.2023 OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER RAMAPURAM`** - **`Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DRAFT DATA BANK OF KADANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH`** - **`Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 6 DATED 03.12.2020`** - **`Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF KADANAD PANCHAYATH DATED 09.02.2021`** - **`Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY THE REPORT DATED 15.03.2021 ALONG WITH THE MINUTES DATED 26.02.2021 OF KADANAD VILLAGE OFFICER`** - **`Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO. 5`** - **`Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 08.10.2021 OF VILLAGE OFFICER RAMAPURAM`** - **`Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3 RD RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 09.11.2021`** - **`Exhibit P9 TTRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE LLMC DATED 22.02.2022 ALONG WITH THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING`** - **`Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO L3-1391/2021 DATED 01.07.2022 OF THE 1 ST RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO KADANAD AGRICULTURAL OFFICER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT`** W.P.(C) No.28486 of 2023 11 ``` Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.08.2023 ISSUED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KADANAD ``` - **`Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ACQUISITION MAHASAR PREPARED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWAY) DATED 19.02.2006`** - **`Exhibit P14 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT NO A -172/ 2015/KSREC/006697/21 DATED 02/02/22 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT`**