High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-12Writ petition disposed of. Ext. P22 set aside; ...

P. V. Thomas v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 9470 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-03-12
Court Decision / Holding: Ext. P22 is set aside and the 3rd respondent (RDO) is directed to reconsider Exts. P7–P9 (Form No.5 applications) in Form No.5 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in terms of Ext. P21, notwithstanding the pendency or conclusion of the Section 13 proceedings under the Act, 2008. Writ petition disposed of.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of. Ext. P22 set aside; directions to reconsider Form No.5 applications within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. V. Thomas

Respondents

The Secretary, Agricultural Department, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum
The District Collector, Kakkanad Civil Station, Ernakulam
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District
The Local Level Monitoring Committee, Mazhuvanoor Nellad P.O., Ernakulam District represented by its Convenor
The Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Mazhuvanoor Nellad P.O., Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Paul K. Varghese
• A. A. Geetha

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. Devishree-GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P. V. Thomas, challenged Ext. P22, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer invoking Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which purportedly rejected his Form No.5 applications (P7–P9). He had earlier approached this Court in W.P(C) No. 32603 of 2023 challenging Exts. P12–P14 orders. By Ext. P21 judgment, the Court had set aside those orders on the ground that Section 13 proceedings, and revisions thereunder, had been challenged before the Government and that coercive steps should be kept in abeyance pending disposal of the related appeal in W.P(C) No. 20795 of 2023. The court also relied on Bharathan Ramanathan v. State of Kerala (2022) and Devanand v. State of Kerala (2023) to hold that pendency of Section 13 or a revision cannot justify denying Form No.5 applications under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The 3rd respondent’s finding that Section 13 proceedings were pending was found to be incorrect, and the Court directed a fresh consideration of Exts. P7–P9 within one month from receipt of this judgment, notwithstanding the status of Section 13 proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of with a mandate to reconsider the Form No.5 applications in light of Ext. P21 and the cited authorities.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Section 27B of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P22 was wrongfully passed after Ext. P21 had directed the 3rd respondent to consider Exts. P7–P9 in Form No.5 and to decide afresh, notwithstanding the pendency or conclusion of Section 13 proceedings. He relies on Bharathan Ramanathan v. State of Kerala (2022) and Devanand v. State of Kerala (2023) to argue that pendency of Section 13 or a revision cannot bar entertaining Form No.5 applications under Rule 4(d) of the Rules; the Court’s stay order in related matters should be read to permit adjudication of Form No.5 applications promptly. The petitioner seeks a fresh evaluation of his Form No.5 forms within a defined timeframe, despite ongoing proceedings under Section 13.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that Ext. P22 was a reasoned exercise in light of the status of Section 13 proceedings and the need to ensure compliance with orders staying coercive actions. They rely on prior orders and the government’s position that finality of Section 13 orders is essential to the proper disposition of Form No.5 applications; the respondent argues for deference to the administrative process and the stay orders already in place.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bharathan Ramanathan v State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 541	Positive	Held that mere pendency of Section 13 proceedings or a revision based on Section 13 cannot be a ground to deny entertaining an application invoking Rule 4(d) of the Rules.
Devanand v. State of Kerala	2023 (1) KHC 123	Positive	Held that even if Section 13 proceedings are concluded, the petitioner has a right to have Form No.5 applications considered by the RDO.
W.P.(C) No. 20795 of 2023	W.P.(C) No. 20795 of 2023	Positive	Stayed all coercive proceedings pursuant to the District Collector’s order during the disposal of the revision petition.
W.P.(C) No. 32603/2023	W.P.(C) No. 32603/2023	Mentioned Only	Referenced as an earlier filing related to Exts. P12–P14; background for the current proceedings; not directly relied upon for a holdings-based proposition in the present decision.

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 P. V. Thomas 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 TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 ## WP(C) NO. 9470 OF 2024 ## PETITIONER: P.V. THOMAS AGED 75 YEARS S/O. VARKEY, PALAKKUNNEL HOUSE, KADAKKANADU P.O., SOUTH MAZHUVANNOOR, VIA KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 311. BY ADVS. PAUL K.VARGHESE A.A.GEETHA ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 THE SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 685 001. - 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KAKKANADU CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 030. - 3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 669. - 4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTE MAZHUVANOOR NELLAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, PIN – 682 311. W. P.(C) No. 9470 of 2024 : 2 : - 5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHIBHAVAN MAZHUVANOOR NELLAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 311. BY ADV. SMT.DEVISHREE-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W. P.(C) No. 9470 of 2024 : 3 : ## JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P22 proceedings of the 3[rd] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P(C) No.32603 of 2023 aggrieved by Exts.P12 to P14 orders whereby Exts.P7 to P9 applications in Form No.5 were rejected by the 3[rd] respondent. This Court, by Ext.P21 judgment, set aside Exts.P12 to P14 orders on the ground that the proceedings initiated by the District Collector under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, the Act, 2008), has been challenged before the Government in revision and all coercive steps pursuant W. P.(C) No. 9470 of 2024 : 4 : to the order under Section 13 was directed to be kept in abeyance till the appeal is disposed of, by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20795 of 2023. In Ext.P21 judgment, this Court also referred to the decision in Bharathan Ramanathan v State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 541], wherein it was held that the mere pendency of Section 13 proceedings or a revision proceedings based on Section 13 order cannot be a ground not to entertain an application invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules, 2008’). Accordingly, this Court directed the 3[rd] respondent to consider Exts.P7 to P9 applications in Form No.5 and to take a fresh decision in the matter. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P21 judgment, the 3[rd] W. P.(C) No. 9470 of 2024 : 5 : respondent passed Ext.P22 proceedings rejecting Exts.P7 to P9 applications. The reason stated in Ext.P22 is that, this Court has granted only a temporary stay of Section 13 proceedings and the District Collector has not passed final orders. 3. The finding of the 3[rd] respondent that the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, 2008 before the District Collector is pending is incorrect. Against the order of the District collector dated 07.06.2023 under Section 13, a revision has been preferred by the petitioner before the Government under Section 27 B of the Act, 2008 and this Court, by judgment in W.P. (C) No. 20795 of 2023 stayed all coercive proceedings pursuant to the order of the District Collector till the disposal of the revision petition. Further, this Court W. P.(C) No. 9470 of 2024 : 6 : in Devanand v. State of Kerala [2023 (1) KHC 123] has held that, even if Section 13 proceedings are concluded, the petitioner has a right to get his form 5 application considered by the RDO. Therefore, the pendency of proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, 2008 or conclusion of the proceedings under Section 13, is not a ground not to consider an application in Form No.5. Accordingly, Ext.P22 order is set aside and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to reconsider Exts.P7 to P9 applications of the petitioner in Form No.5 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in terms of the directions in Ext.P21 judgment, notwithstanding the pendency or conclusion of the proceedings initiated under Section W. P.(C) No. 9470 of 2024 : 7 : 13 of the Act, 2008. Writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ W. P.(C) No. 9470 of 2024 : 8 : ## APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9470/2024 ## PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTIES DATED 20.6.2022. - Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY. - Exhibit P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PETITIONER`S PROPERTY FROM KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AUTHORITY DATED 21.3.2023. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S. NO. 294/2022 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 15.11.2022. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA NO. 1/2023 OF THE SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 31.7.2023. - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK REGISTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. - Exhibit P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO. 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 7.12.2022. W. P.(C) No. 9470 of 2024 : 9 : - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO. 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 7.12.2022. - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO. 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 7.12.2022. - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO 42508/2022 OF THIS COURT DATED 23.12.2.22. - Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO, 38475/2022 OF THIS COURT DATED 16.1.2023. - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 8300/2023 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 27.7.2023 WITH TYPED COPY. - Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 8308/2023 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 27.7.2023 WHICH WAS SERVED TO THE PETITIONER ON 10.8.2023 WITH TYPED COPY. - Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 8311/2023 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 27.7.2023 WHICH WAS SERVED TO THE PETITIONER ON 10.8.2023 WITH TYPED COPY. - Exhibit P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. 197255/2023 ON THE FILE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 10.8.2023. W. P.(C) No. 9470 of 2024 : 10 : - Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. 197256/2023 ON THE FILE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 10.8.2023. - Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. 197258/2023 ON THE FILE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 10.8.2023. - Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 197255/2023 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 2.9.2023. - Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 197256/2023 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 2.9.2023. - Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 197258/2023 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 2.9.2023. - Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 32603/2023 OF THIS COURT DATED 31.10.2023. - Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 16.2.2024.