High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-08Writ petition disposed with directions to recon...

Muhammed Shafi v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 35994 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-02-08
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed with directions to the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the petitioner’s Form No.5 application, using Ext.P3 (KSRSEC report) and the observations in this judgment, and to render a fresh decision within two months from receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed with directions to reconsider the Form No.5 application within two months using Ext.P3 and the court's observations and precedents.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Muhammed Shafi

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN 695001
Land Revenue Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Public Office Building, Museum Road, Opposite Zoo, Vikhas Bhavan P.O, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN 695033
The District Collector, Malappuram Collectorate, Conference Hall, Collectorate Road, Up Hill, Malappuram District - 676505
The Sub Collector, Revenue Divisional Office Perinthalmanna, Shornur-Perinthalmanna Road, Shanti Nagar, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District - 679322
Local Level Monitoring Committee, Perinthalmanna Municipality, represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Perinthalmanna Municipality Office, Bus Stand, First Floor, Manazhi, Kozhikkode-Palakkad Bypass Road, Kuttiypara, Pathaikkara
The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Perinthalmanna, G Floor, Civil Station, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District - 679322
The Village Officer, Village Office Perinthalmanna, Shanti Nagar, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District – 679322

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Mohanakannan
• D. S. Thushara

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. Devishree (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P4, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting Form‑5 for removal of land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner, Muhammed Shafi, claims ownership of 0.0344 hectares in old Sy. No.112/6-7 at Perinthalmanna, Malappuram, asserting the land is not paddy land or wetland as defined by the Act and contends it is wrongly shown as nilam in the Basic Tax Register. Ext.P4 relied on the Agricultural Officer’s report and the KSRSEC data, which show prior paddy land use and connectivity with structures in later years, and refused removal. The petitioner contends Ext.P4 suffers from non‑application of mind, and that the LLMCommittee data alone cannot justify denial; he argues the RDO must assess the land on the date of coming into force of the Act and whether removal would affect paddy cultivation or wetlands. The Court cites Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer to emphasize independent assessment and the feasibility test for Form‑5. The High Court finds total non‑application of mind in Ext.P4, sets it aside, and directs the RDO to reconsider the Form No.5 application within two months using Ext.P3 and the court’s observations and precedents.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext.P4 is vitiated by non‑application of mind and contrary to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and binding precedents. He asserts the RDO did not independently ascertain the land’s character on the date of coming into force of the Act and relied on the Agricultural Officer’s report and the KSRSEC data. He argues the predominant question is whether the land is feasible for paddy cultivation as of the Act’s date, not merely historical classification. Citing Arthasasthra Ventures v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, he seeks removal from the Data Bank and a fresh, independent assessment, noting that LLMC’s decision cannot substitute for RDO’s own findings. He prays for quashing Ext.P4 and remitting the matter for Form-5 reconsideration guided by the Court’s observations and the Ext.P3 report within a finite period.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue Ext.P4 was based on material on record, including the Agricultural Officer’s report and KSRSEC data, showing that the land lies within paddy land/wetland classification and could indicate continued paddy use. They contend LLMC’s decision is not binding to the extent independent reassessment is required; Data Bank protection of paddy lands remains paramount, and removal requires clear evidence. They maintain that the RDO complied with the statutory framework, and that the petition should be dismissed or Ext.P4 sustained unless the court mandates a different approach.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	Court held that the RDO must consider whether land was paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act and its suitability for paddy cultivation; independent assessment is required.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	RDO must independently assess status and cannot rely solely on LLMC; removal from Data Bank requires findings on impact on paddy cultivation or wetlands.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Predominant factor for Form-5 is feasibility of paddy cultivation; decision must reflect 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 Muhammed Shafi v. State of Kerala & Others 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 35994 OF 2023** **PETITIONER:** **MUHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, PACHAYIL HOUSE, MANATHUMANGALAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 679322** **BY ADVS. K.MOHANAKANNAN D.S.THUSHARA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695001** - **2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD, OPPOSITE ZOO, VIKHAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695033** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM COLLECTORATE, CONFERENCE HALL, COLLECTORATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676505** - **4 THE SUB COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE PERINTHALMANNA, SHORNUR-PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679322** **5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, BUS STAND, FIRST FLOOR, MANAZHI, KOZHIKKODE-PALAKKAD BYPASS ROAD, KUTTIPPARA, PATHAIKKARA,** **WP(C) NO. 35994 OF 2023 : 2 :** **PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679322** |**6**|**THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,**| |---|---| ||**KRISHI BHAVAN, PERINTHALMANNA, G FLOOR,**| ||**CIVIL STATION, PERINTHALMANNA,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679322**| |**7**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**VILLAGE OFFICE PERINTHALMANNA,**| ||**SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679322**| ||**R BY GP SMT.DEVISHREE**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 35994 OF 2023 : 3 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 0.0344 Hectares of property in old Sy.No.112/6-7 of Perinthalmanna Taluk, Malappuram District, by virtue of Ext.P1 assignment deed. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wet land as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 **WP(C) NO. 35994 OF 2023 : 4 :** (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008' for short). However, it is stated that the property is wrongly shown as 'nilam' in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner filed an application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P4 stating that as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the land was not converted prior to 2008 and there are no other trees, mixed crops, buildings and therefore, it cannot be removed from the Data Bank. A report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (for short, 'the KSRSEC) was called for and it is stated therein that, as per the topsheet of 1967, **WP(C) NO. 35994 OF 2023 : 5 :** the survey plot 112/6 was observed under paddy land. The plot was observed under mixed vegetation/plantation/trees with building/structures in 2007 data. The same land use practices were continued in the data of subsequent years as in 2010, 2014 and 2021. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 contending, _inter alia,_ that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act 2008 and the binding precedents of this Court. It is also contended that the KSRSEC report was wrongly appreciated by the Revenue Divisional Officer and on the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer, the application has been rejected. 5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of **WP(C) NO. 35994 OF 2023 : 6 :** the property as a paddy land or wetland is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. On a perusal of Ext.P4, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the said order refusing to remove the property from the Data Bank. 6. This Court has held 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 on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. This **WP(C) NO. 35994 OF 2023 : 7 :** Court in **Muraleedharan 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 is unsustainable. In **Aparna Sasi Menon** v. **Revenue** **WP(C) NO. 35994 OF 2023 : 8 :** **Divisional Officer** [2023 (4) KLT 270] this Court has held that the predominant factor for determination while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. 7. I find that there is total non application of mind on the part of the RDO while interpreting the reports of the Agricultural Officer as well as the KSRSEC. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P4 with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application of the petitioner in Form No.5 and take a decision in the matter on the basis of Ext.P3 KSRSEC report and the observation of this Court and the binding precedents, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this **WP(C) NO. 35994 OF 2023 : 9 :** judgment. ## The writ petition is disposed with the above direction. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB **WP(C) NO. 35994 OF 2023 : 10 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO. 2245/2019 OF SRO, PERINTHALMANNA DATED 15/06/2019 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA DATED 24/03/2021 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT, NO. A- 172/2015/KSREC/004128/22 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4 TH RESPONDENT, NO. 2582/2023 DATED 09/10/2023**