Nalina Khan v. The District Collector, Kollam, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam, The Tahsildar, Thaluk Office, Kollam, The Village Officer, Poothakkulam Village, Kollam District, and The Agriculture Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Poothakkulam Village, Kollam District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 10358 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **NALINAKHAN** **AGED 74 YEARS** **S/O PAPPU, AKSHAYA, PUTHENKULAM P.O., POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691302** **BY ADVS.** - **K.V.ANIL KUMAR SWAPNA VIJAYAN RADHIKA S.ANIL** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013** - **2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM RDO OFFICE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013** - **3 THE TAHSILDR THALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691302** - **5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691302** ## **BY ADV.** **SMT.DEVI SHRI.R, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO.10358 OF 2024 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** # **-----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.10358 of 2024** **------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext-P3 and P4 Orders and quash the same; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 2 and 5 to reconsider petitioner’s request to remove his 17.5 Cents of converted land included in Sy. No. 531/5 in Block 36 of Poothakkulam Village from Ext-P2 DATA-Bank; iii) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case and WP(C) NO.10358 OF 2024 3 iv) Dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language.” _[SIC]_ 2. Petitioner is the owner and in possession of 19.90 Ares of property in Re.Sy. No. 531/5 in Block No.36 of Poothakkulam Village. In the revenue records the property is shown as 'Nilam'. According to the petitioner, for the last 30 years, 17.5 cents northeastern portion of the said property is situated as converted land and it is mentioned in Ext.P2 Data Bank. But, the 5[th] respondent had rejected petitioner's request to remove the converted land of the petitioner from Ext.P2 Data Bank and issued Ext.P3 order stating that, in the revenue records the property of the petitioner is mentioned as paddy land, is the submission. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P2 Data Bank also it is mentioned that the property is unfit for paddy cultivation. It is also submitted that, WP(C) NO.10358 OF 2024 4 Ext.P3 is a non-speaking order. There are grown up yielding trees situated in the petitioner's property and the petitioner produced Ext.P5 photographs to prove the same. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 decision, petitioner submitted an application in Form- 5 before the 2[nd] respondent. But the same was rejected as per Ext.P4 order. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 is not a speaking order. It is also submitted that, it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, i.e., date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008, that is relevant for inclusion or exclusion of the land in the Data Bank. It is submitted that, in this case, prior to the commencement of the said Act, petitioner's property is a converted land. Therefore, Exts.P3 & P4 orders are illegal and is liable to be quashed is the submission. Hence this writ petition is filed. WP(C) NO.10358 OF 2024 5 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing 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 WP(C) NO.10358 OF 2024 6 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 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 WP(C) NO.10358 OF 2024 7 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 2[nd] 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: i) Ext.P4 order is set aside. ii) The 2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate WP(C) NO.10358 OF 2024 8 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iii) 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 2[nd] respondent. If fresh KSREC report is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to consider the Form 5 application only within a period WP(C) NO.10358 OF 2024 9 of three months from the date of receipt of the report from the KSREC. iv) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 2[nd] respondent for compliance. _Sd/-_ **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** DM **JUDGE** WP(C) NO.10358 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10358/2024** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2022 WIDE NO. KDS/367382/22 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT-P5 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT LIE AND NATURE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**