High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-23Writ petitions allowed; orders quashed; data ba...

P. Vijayan S/o Balakrishnan v. Sub Collector, Ottapalam

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) Nos. 25379 & 26112 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: T. R. Ravi
Judgment Date: 2022-05-23
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed. Ext.P4 in WP(C) No.26112 and Exts.P4 and P5 in WP(C) No.25379 are quashed. It is declared that the land not included in the data bank as paddy land or wetland will not come under the definition of 'paddy land' or 'wetland' under Section 2(12) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The respondent is directed to reconsider the Form 5 applications and delete the properties from the data bank, ignoring the LLMC report on conversion. Necessary orders shall be issued within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; orders quashed; data bank corrections to delete entries and reconsider Form 5 within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. Vijayan S/o Balakrishnan

Respondents

Sub Collector, Ottapalam, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottapalam, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Philip J. Vettickattu
• Sajitha George

Counsels for Respondents

• Rajeev Jyothish George

Case Synopsis & Summary

These two connected writ petitions, W.P.(C) Nos. 25379 and 26112 of 2021, were heard together since the petitioner in both is the same and the questions are identical. The petitioner owns land in Sy.No. 44/1 (0.1375 ha), 44/8 (0.0081 ha) and 47/1 (0.4281 ha) in Vaniyamkulam-2, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad. The land was not shown as paddy land or wetland in the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008; instead it was marked as “partly converted” in several entries. The petitioner filed Form 5 corrections to rectify these entries, as the incorrect labeling triggers difficulties in administration. The respondent rejected these corrections on 25-11-2020, treating the petitions as though they sought conversion of land, based in part on the LLMC report. The petitioner contends that correction under Form 5 is distinct from conversion and that the LLMC report and the focus on conversion are irrelevant to the request for correction. The Court found force in the petitioners’ contentions, noting that the orders ignored relevant aspects and relied on irrelevant considerations for determining correction. It quashed the corrective orders, held that the land not being paddy land or wetland falls outside the 2(12) definition, and directed the authority to reconsider Form 5 applications and delete the entries within a month.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, Section 2(12)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Functus officio

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Form 5 corrections are intended to rectify data bank entries, not to seek conversion of land. The entries showing 'partly converted' mislabel the land, and the LLMC report’s focus on possible conversion is irrelevant to the correction sought. The data bank once published accords functus officio status to authorities, and the order should not rely on conversion considerations. The petition seeks quashing of the rejection orders (Ext. P4, P5) and deletion of the entries, with a direction to reconsider Form 5 in light of the data bank being non-paddy/wetland land.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that corrections under Form 5 must take into account whether the land can be converted or used differently; LLMC and RTI reports discuss possible conversion and influence the data bank entry; corrections should reflect the land’s potential conversion, as the data bank under the Act governs such status. They maintained that the orders were properly reasoned and based on applicable records.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Salim v. State of Kerala	2017 (1) KLT 392	Mentioned Only	Cited to support the proposition that after publication of the data bank, officers may be constrained in revisiting certain determinations; not the central basis of the 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. Vijayan S/o Balakrishnan v. Sub Collector, Ottapalam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

W.P.(C)Nos.25379 & 26112/2021 -1- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI MONDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 25379 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** P.VIJAYAN S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, POOLEERY, CHOROTTUR, MANISSERRY 679 521 BY ADVS. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SAJITHA GEORGE ## **RESPONDENT:** THE SUB COLLECTOR, OTTAPPALAM, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD 679 101 SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).26112/2021, THE COURT ON 23.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)Nos.25379 & 26112/2021 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **MONDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 26112 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** P.VIJAYAN S/O BALAKRISHNAN, POOLEERY, CHOROTTUR, MANISSERY-679521. BY ADVS. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SAJITHA GEORGE ## **RESPONDENT:** THE SUB COLLECTOR OTTAPALAM, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679101. SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).25379/2021, THE COURT ON 23.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)Nos.25379 & 26112/2021 -3- ## **T.R. RAVI, J.** **--------------------------------------------** W.P.(C)Nos.25379 & 26112 of 2021 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in both these writ petitions are same and the issues involved are also similar. The writ petitions are hence heard and disposed of together. 2. The petitioner owns an extent of 0.1375 Hectares of land in Sy.No.44/1, 0.0081 Hectares of land in Sy.No.44/8 and 0.4281 Hectares of land in Sy.No.47/1 of Vaniyamkulam-2 Village, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad district. The petitioner has produced the title deeds relating to the property which are of the years 1997, 2007, and 2011. The properties of the petitioner are not included as paddy land or wetland in the data bank that had been prepared. Instead, the properties in Sy.No.44/1 and 44/8 have been shown as “partly converted 10 years back” and the property in Sy.No.47/1 is shown as “partly converted 13 years back”. The petitioner had preferred applications in Form 5 for correction of the data bank since an entry in the nature referred above will cause difficulties. The copies of the applications have been produced as Exts.P2 and P3 in W.P.(C)No.25379 of 2021 W.P.(C)Nos.25379 & 26112/2021 -4- and as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.26112 of 2021. The applications were rejected as per proceedings dated 25.11.2020 which have been produced as Exts.P4 and P5 in W.P.(C)No.25379 of 2021 and as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.26112 of 2021. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has treated the applications submitted by the petitioner as applications seeking conversion of the properties and on such a wrong premise, the applications have been rejected observing that the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) has in its report stated that there is no necessity to remove the property from the data bank. The very aspect that the property has not been included as paddy land or wetland in the data bank has not been considered. The petitioner points out that even in the report of the LLMC, there is no unanimous opinion regarding the aspect and out of the three members, one of the members has stated that he recommends the correction. The report of the LLMC also would indicate that what has been considered is whether the property can be converted. The petitioner has produced a location sketch relating to the property, issued by the Village Officer, which would show that on one side of the property there is a road and on all other sides there are residential houses. The petitioner submits that the very purpose of an application in Form 5 is for W.P.(C)Nos.25379 & 26112/2021 -5- the correction of an entry and it has nothing to do with the conversion of the properties. The petitioner also relies on the judgment of this Court in **Salim v. State of of Keala** reported in **[2017 (1) KLT 392]** , wherein this Court has held that after the data bank is published, the Officers become _functus officio._ 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent. 4. I find considerable force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners. A reading of the orders issued by the respondent clearly shows that the respondent has not considered the relevant aspects and totally irrelevant considerations have gone into the decision making. I find that the request before the authorities was only regarding the correction of the entry and not regarding any permission for conversion of land or its user. 5. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.26112 of 2021 and Exts.P4 and P5 in W.P.(C)No.25379 of 2021 are quashed. It is declared that the properties of the petitioner, having not been included in the data bank as paddy land or wetland, will not come under the definition of “paddy land” or “wetland” as defined under Section 2(12) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. There will be W.P.(C)Nos.25379 & 26112/2021 -6- a direction to the respondent to reconsider the applications in Form 5 submitted by the petitioner and delete the properties from the data bank, ignoring the reports of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC on the aspect whether the land should be permitted to be converted, which is a totally irrelevant aspect. Necessary orders shall be issued within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **T.R. RAVI JUDGE** dsn W.P.(C)Nos.25379 & 26112/2021 -7- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25379/2021** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF DATA BANK WITH RESPECT TO SY.NO. 44/1 AND 44/8 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF APPLICATION IN FORMS 5 FOR CORRECTION IN THE DATA BANK ENTRY WITH RESPECT TO SY.NO. 44/1 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF APPLICATION IN FORM 5 FOR CORRECTION IN THE DATA BANK ENTRY WITH RESPECT TO SY.NO. 44/1 AND 44/8 - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 25-11-2020 WITH RESPECT TO SY.NO.44/1/ REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 25-11-2020 WITH RESPECT TO SY.NO. 44/1/ AND 44/8 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 13-08-2020 TO THE AGRICUTURAL OFFICER CALLING FOR ITS REPORT OBTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER OBTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH AND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES OF THE LAND. W.P.(C)Nos.25379 & 26112/2021 -8- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26112/2021** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.6091/1/2011 DATED 26.12.2011. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF DATA BANK WITH RESPECT TO SY.NO.47/1. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF APPLICATION IN FORM 5 FOR CORRECTION IN THE DATA BANK ENTRY WITH RESPECT TO SY.NO.47/1. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2020 WITH RESPECT TO SY.NO.47/1 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 13.08.2020 TO THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER CALLING FOR ITS REPORT OBTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER OBTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH AND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES OF THE LAND IN SY.47/1.