High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-21Writ petition disposed of in part; Ext P4 set a...

Manoj Jacob v. Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Fort Kochi; Agricultural Officer, Kalamassery Municipality; Village Officer, Thrikkakara North Village; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.11513 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-03-21
Court Decision / Holding: Ext. P4 order set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner within three months of receipt of this judgment, after providing an opportunity to obtain KSREC report if requested (petitioner may file for KSREC; if KSREC report is available, it will be considered; if a fresh KSREC report is required, Form 5 must be considered within three months from receipt of the report). The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment and the petition with exhibits before the 1st respondent. The Court also directs the 1st respondent to follow the dicta of Adani Infrastructures and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State Kerala, Lalu v. State of Kerala, Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Mureleedharan Nair v. RDO, Joy v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO in deciding Form 5, as applicable.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of in part; Ext P4 set aside; directions issued for reconsideration of Form 5 with KSREC report as applicable; compliance to follow dicta in cited cases; certification required for judgment copy.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Manoj Jacob

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Fort Kochi RDO Office, Fort Kochi
Agricultural Officer, Kalamassery Municipality, Kangarapady, Vadacode P.O
Village Officer, Thrikkakara North Village, Koonamthayi, Changapuzha Nagar P.O
Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.K. Soyuz
• E.V. Babychan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Manoj Jacob filed WP(C) No.11513 of 2024 challenging Ext. P4, an order under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008, removing land from the Data Bank. He holds 2.43 ares in Re-survey No. 849/1-2, Thrikkakara North Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam, registered in his and his wife’s name. Ext. P3 sought Form 5 deletion from the Data Bank but Ext. P4 rejected it without a proper KSREC report. The petitioner contends the land is developed and non-cultivable; its status as on 12.08.2008 was not scientifically ascertained, and KSREC’s report was not properly considered. He argues that the 1st respondent did not independently evaluate whether removal would adversely affect paddy cultivation or sustenance of wetlands. The respondents submit that Ext. P4 rests on the KSREC report and prior Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) decisions. The court held Ext. P4 to be non-speaking and not addressing the petitioner’s contentions, citing Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO and related authorities. It directed the 1st respondent to reassess Form 5 within three months, optionally obtain KSREC report if the petitioner requests, and consider Form 5 with KSREC findings. It also directed the petitioner to obtain a certified copy of the judgment and for the 1st respondent to comply in light of the discussed dicta.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends Ext. P4 is not a speaking order and was passed without independent consideration of KSREC report; Ext. P3/Form 5 deletion should be considered after proper KSREC data; the land’s status as on 12.08.2008 must be scientifically ascertained; reliance on LLMC or KSREC alone is insufficient.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend Ext. P4 is based on KSREC report and LLMC decisions; the RDO’s decision-making power may rely on such reports; the order was issued within the framework of relevant data and procedures.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Adani Infrastructures and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala	2014 (1) KLT 774	Positive	Dictum cited and to be considered in decision-making regarding Form 5 and data bank deletions.
Lalu v. State of Kerala	2020 (5) KLT 712	Positive	Cited for guiding principles on data bank decisions and paddy/wetland considerations.
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 561	Positive	Cited to support the approach to Form 5 evaluation.
Mureleedharan Nair v. RDO	2023 (4) KHC 524	Positive	Used to emphasize need for independent assessment by RDO, not mere reliance on LLMC.
Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector	2021 (1) KLT 433	Positive	Cited for principles governing Form 5 deliberations.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO	2023 (6) KHC 83	Positive	Dicta that predominant factor is whether land is still cultivable/paddy-feasible for Form 5.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Held that dismissal cannot rest solely on LLMC conclusions; independent assessment required.

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 Manoj Jacob v. Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Fort Kochi; Agricultural Officer, Kalamassery Municipality; Village Officer, Thrikkakara North Village; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946** ## **WP(C) NO. 11513 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **MANOJ JACOB AGED 61 YEARS YEARS , S/O C.K. JACOB CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, ROSE GARDENS, AKG ROAD , EDAPPALLY ERNAKULAM DISTRIC, PIN - 682024** **BY ADVS. P.K.SOYUZ E.V.BABYCHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER /SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI P.O ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001 2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KALAMASERY MUNICIPALITY KANGARAPADY, VADACODE P.O , ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682021 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE , KOONAMTHAI, CHANGAPUZHA NAGAR P.O ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682033 4 THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER 'C' BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SMT AMMINIKUTTY K, SR GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P (C) No.11513 of 2024 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** W.P.(C).No.11513 of 2024 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 21[st] day of March, 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- _“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P4 order and quash the same._ _ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application in Form No.5, after obtaining a report from the 4[th] respondent KSREC , and in the light of Judgments in_ _**Adani Infrastructures and Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. State Kerala, 2014 (1) KLT 774, Lalu V. State of Kerala 2020(5) KLT 712, Joy V. Revenue Divisional officer / Sub collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433, Arthasasthra Ventures (India ) LLP V. state of Kerala , 2022 (7) KHC 561 and in Mureleedharan Nair R V. RDO , 2023 (4 ) KHC 524. Aparna Sasi Menon V. RDO , 2023 (6) KHC 83** and direct to make necessary corrections in Ext P2 data bank by deleting the land covered by Ext P1 tax receipt from the data bank._ _iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petition._ _iv) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.” (SIC)_ 2. The petitioner is in ownership and in possession of 2.43 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.849/1 - 2 in Block No. 5 of Thrikkakara North Village, Kanayannoor Taluk W.P (C) No.11513 of 2024 3 along with his wife Mr.Reji Joseph. It is submitted that the above said land is in a developed residential area and there are granite foundations on all the 4 sides of the land. The land is surrounded by road and other converted lands. The above said land was converted much before and it was not a cultivable land or suitable land for paddy cultivation at the time of commencement of Act 28 of 2008 is the submission. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in Form No.5 before the 1[st] respondent to delete the lands from the data bank. But without obtaining any proper report from 4[th] respondent - KSREC, the 1[st] respondent rejected Ext.P3 application vide Ext.P4 order is the submission. The 1[st] respondent has not considered the judgments in _**Adani lnfrastructures and Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. State Kerala, 2014 (1) KLT 774, Lalu V. State of Kerala, 2020(5) KLT 712, Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP V. State of Kerala, 2022 (7) KHC 561, Mureleedharan Nair R V. RDO, 2023 (4 ) KHC 524, Joy V. Revenue Divisional officer/Sub collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433 and Aparna Sasi Menon V. RDO, 2023 (6) KHC 83**_ is the further submission. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, this writ petition is filed. W.P (C) No.11513 of 2024 4 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 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.P4 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 Officer [2023 (5) KLT 432],**_ this Court observed that the W.P (C) No.11513 of 2024 5 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 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 W.P (C) No.11513 of 2024 6 following directions: a) Ext.P4 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. If fresh KSREC report is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to consider the Form 5 application only within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report from KSREC. d) The petitioner will produce the certified copy W.P (C) No.11513 of 2024 7 of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. e) While deciding the matter, the 1[st] respondent will consider the dictum laid down by this Court in _**Adani lnfrastructures and Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. State Kerala, 2014 (1) KLT 774, Lalu V. State of Kerala, 2020(5) KLT 712, Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP V. State of Kerala, 2022 (7) KHC 561, Mureleedharan Nair R V. RDO, 2023 (4 ) KHC 524, Joy V. Revenue Divisional officer/Sub collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433 and Aparna Sasi Menon V. RDO, 2023 (6) KHC 83.**_ Sd/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** bng W.P (C) No.11513 of 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11513/2024** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.09.2022** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF KALAMASERY MUNICIPALITY DATED 05.02.2021** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P4** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K16/9166/2022 DATED 28.01.2023 OF THE 1 ST RESPONDENT**