M.C. Santosh v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala; Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), Kadanad Grama Panchayath; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kadanad; Village Officer, Ramapuram; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC)

## **`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.30244 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` M.C.SANTHOSH, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NAIR, MALAYIL HOUSE, KURINJI P.O, RAMAPURAM, PALA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686576, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY M.C. RAJESH, AGED 47, 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 SMT.DEVISREE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC, KSREC`** ``` 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.30244 of 2023 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 19.60 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.28/1 in Block No.29 of Ramapuram Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District. The said property has been included in Ext.P2 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’]. On Ext.P3 application, the RDO has called for a report from the Village Officer and the Village Officer submitted Ext.P7 report in terms of the Rules, 2008. In Ext.P7, it has been ``` W.P.(C) No.30244 of 2023 3 ``` reported that the land was converted before commencement of the Act, 2008. The Agricultural Officer 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. Later the land was included in the Data Bank and notified as per Ext.P4. ``` ``` 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’]. In Ext.P9, the Local Level Monitoring ``` W.P.(C) No.30244 of 2023 4 ``` Committee [LLMC] has observed that as per the KSRSEC report, the property has to be retained as paddy land. On the basis of the reports of the Agricultural Officer and the LLMC, 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. The RDO has also relied on the KSRSEC report to arrive at such a finding. ``` ``` 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext.P10 on the ground that the same has been issued based on the reports of the 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.P14 ``` 5 W.P.(C) No.30244 of 2023 ``` report of the KSRSEC shows that as on 2008, the property was paddy land. The KSRSEC report was misquoted by the RDO. The data of 2008 shows that the plot was boarded by road on west and was observed by crops. Ext.P14 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 Agricultural Officer, the Agricultural Officer had stated that the land was converted before 2008 and the property can be excluded from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 4. 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.30244 of 2023 6 ``` or not. ``` ``` 5. 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 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.30244 of 2023 7 ``` is unsustainable. ``` ``` 6. 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. ``` ``` 7. In Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.30244 of 2023 8 ``` 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. ``` ``` 8.This Court inNiyas v. District Collector [2023 (3) KLT 411] has held that the LLMC is also having jurisdiction to consider the application for removal of the land from the Data Bank. ``` ``` In spite of the above decisions of this Court, the RDO has rejected the application of the petitioner. 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, taking into consideration the aforesaid decisions and in ``` W.P.(C) No.30244 of 2023 9 ``` accordance with law. While taking a decision, the 1[st] respondent shall also take into consideration the data in Ext.P14 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.30244 of 2023 10 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-`** ## **`Exhibit P1`** ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.08.2023 OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND ISSUED BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER ``` - **`Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFIED DRAFT DATA BANK OF KADANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 04 .07 .2014`** ``` Exhibit P3 ``` - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 6 DATED 03.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT WITH TYPED COPY`** - **`Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF KADANAD PANCHAYATH DATED 09.02.2021`** - **`Exhibit P5`** - **`A TRUE COPY THE REPORT DATED 26.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P6`** - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT IN FORM NO. 5`** ``` Exhibit P7 ``` - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 08.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH TYPED COPY OF THE 2ND PAGE`** W.P.(C) No.30244 of 2023 11 ``` Exhibit P8A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3 RD RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 09.11.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT ``` - **`Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DECISION OF THE LLMC DATED 22.02.2022 ALONG WITH THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING, WITH TYPED COPY OF PAGE NO 1`** - **`Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L3-1404/ 2021 DATED 16.03.2022 OF THE 1 ST RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S BROTHER TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT`** - **`Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT`** - **`Exhibit P13 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT NO.A-172/ 2015/KSREC/006697/21 DATED 02/02/2022`** - **`RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :`** ``` EXHIBIT R1(a)TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF LLMC DATED 6.12.2021 ``` ``` EXHIBIT R1(b)TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF LLMC DATED 26.02.2021 ```