High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-14Writ petition disposed of. Ext.P3 set aside. Re...

Nazir Ahammed.K.K. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 5763 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-02-14
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P3 is set aside. The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P2(a) in light of the Act, after obtaining the KSRSEC report at the petitioner’s cost. The RDO must independently assess whether the land was paddy land on 12.08.2008 and whether removal from the Data Bank would adversely affect paddy cultivation or wetlands, and decide within two months from receipt of KSRSEC’s report. The petitioner must apply for the KSRSEC report within two weeks of the judgment copy, and a copy of this judgment should be produced before the 4th respondent.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of. Ext.P3 set aside. Remand with directions to reconsider Ext.P2(a) after obtaining KSRSEC report within two months; petitioner to obtain KSRSEC report within two weeks; copy of judgment to be produced before the 4th respondent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nazir Ahammed.K.K.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government Revenue Department
Commissioner Office of the Commissioner of Land Revenue
District Collector, Kenathuparambu, Kunathurmedu, Palakkad
Revenue Divisional Officer, Parakkunnam, Palakkad
Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thenkurissi, Palakkad district
Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by its Convenor, Thenkurussi Agricultural Office, Krishi Bhavan
Village Officer, Thenkurussi Village Office, Thenkurissi, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. K. Mohanakannan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3, a Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) order rejecting his Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, for removal of land from the Data Bank. He owns 0.1041 hectares in Sy.No.359/14, Block 20, Thenkkurssi, Palakkad, claiming the land does not constitute paddy land or wetland as defined in the Act. Ext.P3 relied solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report and LLMC’s recommendation, without independent assessment of the land’s status as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act. The petitioner argues non-application of mind and contravention of statutory provisions, and contends that KSRSEC should have been consulted to verify the land status. The court cites earlier precedents, including Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022 (7) KHC 591), Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2023 (4) KLT 270), and Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2023 (4) KLT 270), which require independent assessment by the RDO and consideration of whether the land was paddy land and suitable for paddy cultivation as of the Act’s date. The court holds that Ext.P3 cannot stand and directs remand for reconsideration with KSRSEC input within two months, at the petitioner’s expense, and with the petitioner filing for KSRSEC report within two weeks of judgment copy. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 4(d) of the RulesForm 5

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Independent assessment by the Revenue Divisional Officer is required when considering removal of land from the Data Bank.
Date of coming into force of the Act is critical for determining paddy land/wetland status.
Predominant factor for Form-5 evaluation is feasibility of paddy cultivation on the land intended for exclusion.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P3 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 that the Revenue Divisional Officer should independently assess the land’s status as on 12.08.2008, rather than rely on the Agricultural Officer’s report and LLMC’s stance. He also submits that the KSRSEC report should be obtained and considered, and the decision should reflect whether removal from the Data Bank would impact paddy cultivation or the sustenance of wetlands. He asks for setting aside Ext.P3 and remand with clear, law-compliant directions within a specified time frame.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that Ext.P3 was properly issued, relying on the Agricultural Officer’s report and the LLMC’s decision. They contend that the RDO acted within its jurisdiction based on available reports, and that the LLMC’s recommendation is admissible as a basis for the order. They emphasize the environmental considerations and the need to preserve wetlands, and may contend that the KSRSEC report is not a mandatory prerequisite or that its absence does not invalidate Ext.P3.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	Court followed the principle that RDO must assess land status as on the Act’s date and evaluate suitability for paddy cultivation, not rely solely on LLMC or AO reports.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Court held that removal/removal-from-Data-Bank applications require independent RDO assessment rather than dismissal based on LLMC alone.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Court emphasized predominant factor for Form-5 evaluation: whether land is suitable for paddy cultivation; independent assessment is essential.

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 Nazir Ahammed.K.K. v. State of Kerala and 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 25TH MAGHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 5763 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **NAZIR AHAMMED.K.K. AGED 43 YEARS C/O.HYDROS KOYA THANGAL, THANNIYANKKAD HYBI ASMA SAKAN, PULICKAL VILLAGE, PALLICKAL, PO, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673634** ## **BY ADV K.MOHANAKANNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001** - **2 THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD, OPPOSITE ZOO, VIKHAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033** - **3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678013** - **4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678001** - **5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN THENKURISSI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678671** - **6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR THENKURUSSI AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN,** **WP(C) NO. 5763 OF 2024 : 2 :** **PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678671** **7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE THENKURUSSI VILLAGE OFFICE, THENKURISSI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678701** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 5763 OF 2024 : 3 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. 2. The is the owner in petitioner joint possession of an extent of 0.1041 Hectares of property in Sy.No.359/14 of Block No.20 of Thenkkurssi Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad District, by virtue of Ext.P1 document. 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. 5763 OF 2024 : 4 :** (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008' for short). However, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P2(a) 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.P3 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the land is not converted and if it is allowed to convert, there will be environmental issues. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 contending, _inter alia,_ that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act,2008 and the **WP(C) NO. 5763 OF 2024 : 5 :** binding precedents of this Court. It is also contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer should have called for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (for short, 'the KSRSEC') to ascertain the status of the land as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. 5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as 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.P3, 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 relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and the **WP(C) NO. 5763 OF 2024 : 6 :** recommendation of the LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. 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 on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. This 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 **WP(C) NO. 5763 OF 2024 : 7 :** 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 v. **Aparna Sasi Menon Revenue 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. **WP(C) NO. 5763 OF 2024 : 8 :** 7. In spite of the categorical declarations by this Court in the decisions cited above, the petitioner's application has been rejected, solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who recommended not to remove the land from the Data Bank. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order is set aside, with a direction to the 4[th ] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P2(a) application in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after obtaining the KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report from the KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply before the Agricultural Officer concerned for KSRSEC report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The **WP(C) NO. 5763 OF 2024 : 9 :** petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with the copy of the judgment before the 4[th] respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB **WP(C) NO. 5763 OF 2024 : 10 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.857/1/2022 OF SRO ALATHUR DATED 6-4-2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 22-4-2022 Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER FORM 5 P2(a) DATED 22.04.2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FILE NO.1229/2022 DATED 12.12.2022 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE**