Manjula N v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 4253 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONER(S):`** ``` MANJULA N AGED 40 YEARS W/O. ANUROOP. S., 'SREEKRISHNAKRIPA', PERINTHALMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322 ``` ``` BY ADVS. U.K.DEVIDAS S.K.SREELAKSHMY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT(S):`** - **`1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA R.D.O. OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322`** - **`2 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, PERINTHALMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA,P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322`** - **`3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA VILLAGE OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322`** ## **`BY ADV.`** ``` SMT. AMMINIKUTTY, SR. GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.4253 OF 2024 ``` 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.4253 of 2024 ------------------------------------Dated this the 02[nd ] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above Writ Petition is filed with the 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.P3 application submitted by the petitioner under Form 5 of the Act, 2008. ## OR A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner under Form 5 of the Act, 2008 on the basis of the report of ``` WP(C) NO.4253 OF 2024 ``` 3 KSREC and satellite picture of the property and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a reasonable time. iii. 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.” **==> picture [33 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** 2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1[st] respondent to reconsider the order passed in Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008 [for short, ‘the Rule, 2008’] and on the basis of the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, Thiruvananthapuram [for short, ‘the KSREC’]. The petitioner and others are the owners of 1.76 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.156/1-10 and 1.76 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.156/1-9 in 4 ``` WP(C) NO.4253 OF 2024 ``` Perinthalmanna Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram District. The description of the above property in the basic tax receipt is as ‘Nilam’. The petitioner and co-owner had filed an application for correction of the description of the property and removal from the Data Bank as evident by Ext.P3 application. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1[st] respondent did not call for a report from the KSREC. It is also the case of the petitioner that the land owned by the petitioner is not fit for paddy cultivation and it is already converted. Eventhen, the 1[st] respondent rejected the said application without considering the report from KSREC and without any enquiry or hearing and also without a site inspection. Hence this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5 ``` WP(C) NO.4253 OF 2024 ``` 4. 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. 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. ``` WP(C) NO.4253 OF 2024 ``` 6 6. 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. 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, 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 7 ``` WP(C) NO.4253 OF 2024 ``` 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 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.P5 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 ``` WP(C) NO.4253 OF 2024 ``` 8 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. 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/- nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` WP(C) NO.4253 OF 2024 ``` 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4253/2024`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO. 2843/2022 DATED 04.06.2022 OF S.R.O., PERINTHALMANNA` - `EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE PERINTHALMANNA VILLAGE OFFICE` - `EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.01.2023 IN FORM 5 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 28.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2023 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.12.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.4388/2023 BY THE HON'BLE COURT` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.20933/2022 BY THE HON'BLE COURT` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL ## //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE