NIDHIN DAS K v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Local Level Monitoring Committee, Puthukkad Grama Panchayath, Agricultural Officer, Puthukkad Krishi Bhavan

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 3RD MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO.2425 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` NIDHIN DAS K, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.DAS, KOODAKKARA HOUSE, CHENGALUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680312 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ASOK KUMAR K.P. ALEXANDER K.C. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FIRST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION ANNEX, CHEMANDA ROAD, IRINJALAKKUDA, PIN - 680125`** - **`2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE PUTHUKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PUTHUKKAD KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680301`** - **`3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER PUTHUKKAD KRISHI BHAVAN PUTHUKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680301`** ## **`BY SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 23.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2024 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6, whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the 1[st] respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer [RDO] solely relying on the report of the 3[rd] respondent/Agricultural Officer. ``` ``` 2. Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 0.0344 Hectares of land comprised in Survey No.595/24-5 and 0.0465 Hectares comprised in Survey No.595/24-6 of Chengalur Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District by virtue of Ext.P1 Settlement 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2024 3 ``` Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,2008'). However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 application in Form 5 of 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 Ext.P6 stating that as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the Local Level Monitoring Committee [LLMC] has recommended not to remove the land from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 contending,inter alia, that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act and the ``` W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2024 4 ``` binding precedents of this Court. ``` ``` 5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wet land 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.P6, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, the RDO has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 6. This Court had held in the decision in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591]that, the RDO must, while considering an application for removal of a property from the Data Bank, consider the question ``` W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2024 5 ``` whether the land was a paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008 and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. 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 RDO to dismiss the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank. The RDO, 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 or in the nearby paddy lands or that it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in ``` W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2024 6 ``` the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. ``` ``` 7.Reliance upon the reports of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC alone will not be sufficient while taking a decision on an application under Form 5. ``` ``` 8. In the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in the above decisions, I find that Ext.P6 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent, the RDO, to reconsider Ext.P5 application, in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after obtaining KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report of the KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply before the ``` W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2024 7 ``` Agricultural Officer concerned for KSRSEC report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` ``` The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` ``` sp/23/01/2024 ``` W.P.(C) No.2425 of 2024 8 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P-1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1879/2021 DATED 14.09.2021 OF NALLAYI SUB REGISTRY ``` ``` EXHIBIT P-2 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 02.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENGALUR ``` - **`EXHIBIT P- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF CHENGALUR VILLAGE`** - **`EXHIBIT P- 4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND`** - **`EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 04.03.2023 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT`** ``` EXHIBIT P-6TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.5057/2023 DATED 11.08.2023 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ```