High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-22Writ petition disposed of with directions (Ext....

M. Mathai v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 36538 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P3 order is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner may submit an application to obtain KSREC report within two weeks of receipt of this judgment; if such application is filed, the authority will obtain the KSREC report and consider it in accordance with law. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment along with the writ petition and exhibits before the 1st respondent for compliance.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions (Ext. P3 set aside; fresh consideration ordered with timeline; KSREC report be considered if requested)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M. Mathai

Respondents

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam
The Local Level Monitoring Committee Athirambuzha
The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Athirambuzha
The Village Officer, Athirambuzha Village
The District Collector, Kottayam
Kerala State Remote Sensing Agency and Environment Centre (KSREC)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Irfan Ziraj
• P. M. Ziraj

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader
• Standing Counsel

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, M. Mathai, challenges Ext. P3, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer removing his property from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Lands Act, 2008. The land is recorded as nilam in village records and the Basic Tax Register, though it has not been suitable for paddy cultivation and has been a purayidom. The Form 5 application to delete the land was rejected by the first respondent without reasons, and Ext. P3 is not a speaking order; it primarily relies on a report from the Agricultural Officer and does not address the petitioner's contentions. The petitioner argues violations of law and lack of independent assessment. The court cites Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, noting that ordinarily the RDO must independently assess the land status and determine whether removal from the Data Bank would adversely affect paddy cultivation and wetlands, rather than merely endorsing the LLMC's decision. The KSREC report's role is emphasised as a potential basis for decision, and the court finds that the impugned order fails to reflect the necessary analysis and is unsustainable. The court sets aside Ext. P3 and directs the RDO to reconsider the Form 5 application within three months, to obtain KSREC report if requested, and to consider the report in accordance with law, with opportunity for personal hearing if required.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the entry of his land in the Data Bank is erroneous as the land is nilam but not suitable for paddy cultivation; Form 5 was rejected without reasons and Ext. P3 is not a speaking order. The KSREC report, if available, should be considered; the LLMC’s finding cannot substitute for independent assessment. The petitioner seeks restoration of the land from the Data Bank and a reasoned reconsideration under due process with an opportunity for personal hearing and access to satellite imagery.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that Ext. P3 reflected consideration of the LLMC decision and agronomic reports; the RDO has the jurisdiction to decide Form 5 and to keep or remove land from the Data Bank; the KSREC report, if requested, will be taken into account; veneration of procedural formalities is not denied but the impugned order should be sustained if it is based on valid grounds.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	The decision highlights that the RDO cannot dismiss Form 5 just by noting the LLMC's conclusion; independent assessment is required.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (5) KLT 432	Positive	Emphasizes that the predominant factor in Form 5 is whether land can be cultivated for paddy; the current case follows this criterion.

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 M. Mathai v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

WP(C) NO. 36538 OF 2023 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 36538 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **M. MATHAI AGED 75 YEARS SON OF P.M MATHAI , MOORTHY PUTHEN PURACKAL,ATHIRAMPUZHA, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686562** **BY ADVS. IRFAN ZIRAJ P.M.ZIRAJ** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOTTAYAM, SECOND FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, UNION CLUB ROAD, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686001 2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ATHIRAMBUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ATHIRAMBUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686562 3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, ATHIRAMBUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686562 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ATHIRAMBUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -** WP(C) NO. 36538 OF 2023 2 ## **686562** **5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686002** **6 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AGENCY AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE (KSREC) VIKAS BHAVAN, C.BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SMT.G.SHEEBA, GP, SRI.VISHNU S CHEMPAZHANTHI, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO. 36538 OF 2023 3 # **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 36538 of 2023 -------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : “1. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order by call for the records leading to the issuance of exhibit P3 order issued by the first respondent and set aside the same as illegal and against the provisions of law. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first respondent to reconsider the matter regarding removal of entry of property of petitioner from the data bank afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing in the subject matter and after call for the records from sixth respondent and obtain satellite image and report in connection with the property of petitioner within a reasonable period which this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case. WP(C) NO. 36538 OF 2023 4 3. Such other writ, direction or order, which this honourable court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and the circumstances of the case. And 4. Dispense with filing of translation of vernacular documents produced along with writ petition.” [sic] 2. The property of the petitioner is classified as 'nilam' in the village records and the Basic Tax Register, even though it is a purayidom ever since and it is not suitable for any kind of paddy cultivation is the submission of the petitioner. Because of the wrong entry in the revenue records and basic tax register, the petitioner filed an application in Form 5 for removing the property of the petitioner from the Data Bank. But, the 1[st] respondent rejected the same without assigning any reason and without considering the contentions of the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. WP(C) NO. 36538 OF 2023 5 4. This Court perused Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 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.P3 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 Committee has decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank. 5. 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 unsustainable. 6. In **Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional** WP(C) NO. 36538 OF 2023 6 **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. 7. 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, the KSREC report is not properly considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The contention of the petitioner is that the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 is not ascertained properly as per scientific process. 8. After going through the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The WP(C) NO. 36538 OF 2023 7 contentions of the petitioner 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.P3 order is set aside. b) The 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of 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. If KSREC report is available, the same will be considered by the 1[st] respondent. WP(C) NO. 36538 OF 2023 8 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. 36538 OF 2023 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36538/2023** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED 18.4.2023 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 17.11.2020 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ORDER DATED 25.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REPORT DATED 24.02.2022 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT**