Noorjahan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Civil Station, Ayyanthole, Thrissur District; Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by its Convenor, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Vellangallur, Thrissur District; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Vellangallur, Thrissur District

**WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2022** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** NOORJAHAN AGED 52 YEARS W/O MOIDEENKUTTY, PADATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680662 BY SR.ADV.SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN MAYA M. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 *REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN – 680003 (*SUBSTITUTED AS REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR- 680125 AS PER ORDER DATED 2.8.2022 IN IA NO.1/2022 IN WPC NO. 17367/2022) 2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VELLANGALLUR, VELLANGALLUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680662 3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, VELLANGALLUR, VELLANGALLUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN – 680662 SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2022** **2** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.17367 of 2022 -------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of August, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed mainly challenging Ext.P13 order passed by the 1[st] respondent. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 22.5 cents of land in Survey No. 157/1, 157/2 and 164/5 of Vadakkumkara Village in Thrissur District, which she obtained as per registered sale deed. As per Ext.P1, 10 cents of land is situated in Survey No.157/1, 6 cents of land in Survey No.157/2 and 6.56 cents of land situated in Survey No.164/5. According to the petitioner, the entire 22.5 cents are lying as a compact plot. As on the date of Ext.P1 deed, ie, before the commencement of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act, 2008') 10 cents of land out of 22.5 cents on the eastern side is lying as **WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2022** **3** 'paramba' and the balance land is lying as 'chira' and 'nilam'. The petitioner is not having any other land other than Ext .P1 land and she is not also having any residential house. The petitioner submitted an application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee under Sec.5(3)(1) of the Act, 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid 10 cents of land was not a nilam on the commencement of the Act, 2008, and it is a paramba as evident from Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, there was no necessity for filing an application under Sec.5(3) for permission to fill up the land for an extent of 4.04 ares for construction of a residential house. It is the case of the petitioner that she had filed the said application which was dismissed by the Local Level Monitoring Committee for reasons best known to them. The petitioner attempted to file an appeal before the District Collector. The said appeal was also dismissed. 2. In the meanwhile, the 2[nd] respondent had obtained a report from the KSREC regarding petitioner's property as evident by Ext.P5. As per Ext.P5 report, the KSREC has stated **WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2022** **4** that on the southern part of the petitioner's property, there is thick vegetation with scattered settlement much prior to 2008 and on the northern portion, it is found to have agricultural practice. Thus according to the petitioner, as can be seen from Ext.P5, it is absolutely clear that at least on the southern side of the petitioner's property, it is thick vegetation and scattered settlement prior to 2007. According to the petitioner, this tallying with the recitals in Ext.P1 sale deed, which says that on the southern portion, 10 cents is paramba. Moreover, it is also submitted that as per Ext.P1, it is clear that northern portion is not paddy land, but a chira and thodu, where coconut cultivation is being conducted. But it is the case of the petitioner that without considering the aforesaid report, the Local Level Monitoring Committee had decided to notify the entire 22.5 cents as paddy land in the final databank. Inclusion of 4.05 ares of land in Sy.No. 157/1, which is Sl.No.246 in Ext.P6 is illegal according to the petitioner and it is against Ext.P5 report of the KSREC. **WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2022** **5** 3. The petitioner filed Form 5 application before the 1[st] respondent to remove the land in Sy. No. 157/1 from the data bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer had directed the Agricultural Officer, Vellangallur to file a report. The Local Level Monitoring Committee had filed a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the earlier report of Local Level Monitoring Committee is valid. According to the petitioner, as a matter of fact, as per Rule 4(d),(e) and (f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, the Local Level Monitoring Committee has no role to file any report. But it is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of Ext. P11 and on the basis of the earlier rejection of the petitioner's application, which was confirmed by the District Collector, the 1[st] respondent has now issued Ext.P13 order rejecting the application. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Heard Senior counsel Adv.Sri.Ranjith Thampan as instructed by Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. I also heard the learned Government Pleader. **WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2022** **6** 5. The impugned order in this case is Ext.P13. A perusal of Ext.P13 will show that it is not a speaking order. Moreover, as per Ext.P1, the property covered in Sy. No.157/1 is a paramba. Ext.P2 is the photograph. Ext.P5 is the KSREC report. The observation and conclusion of Ext.P5 is extracted hereunder : “The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets (2007, 2010, 2013 and 2013) for survey number 157/1. Agriculture practice was found in the southern portion of the survey plot and the southern part is under thick vegetation with scattered settlement. No significant change in land use practice was observed since 2007.” 6. Moreover, this Court in **Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2021 (1) KHC 540] considered the point and the manner in which Form 5 application is to be considered. The consideration of the application by the Local Level Monitoring Committee to examine the matter as on 12.8.2008 is also considered. According to me, the 1[st] **WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2022** **7** respondent has to reconsider the matter, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in **Joy K.K's case** (supra). Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner. 1) Ext.P13 is set aside and the 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, in the light of the observation in this judgment and also in the light of the findings in **Joy K.K's case** (supra). 2) Before passing final orders, the 1[st] respondent will inspect the property and thereafter will decide the matter. 3) The above exercise should be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this jugdment. SD/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **JUDGE** SKS **WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2022** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17367/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1662/08 DATED 11.04.2008 Exhibit P2 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 10.12.2014 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE DATED 05.12.2016 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE KRISHI BHAVAN VELLANGALLUR Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.03.2021 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.06.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED **WP(C) NO. 17367 OF 2022** **9** 17.08.2021 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 17.08.2021 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CONVENER OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 29.09.2021 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2021(1) KHC 540