Parameswaran. M v. District Collector, Palakkad; Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad; Principal Agricultural Officer, Palakkad; Village Officer, Kavassery-II, Kavassery; Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Kavassery; Local Level Monitoring Committee Kavassery Grama Panchayat, Kavassery

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 6288 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` PARAMESWARAN. M AGED 46 YEARS S/O. MUTHU, PUTHENPURA, KAZHANI, KALLEPPULLY, KAVASSERY, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 543. ``` ## **`BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001.`** - **`2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001.`** - **`3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 001.`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KAVASSERY-II VILLAGE, KAVASSERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 543.`** - **`5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHIBHAVAN, KAVASSERY.P.O, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 543.`** - **`6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KAVASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KAVASSERY P.O, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, PIN – 678 543.`** ## **`SMT.R.DEVISHRI, GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C).No.6288 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 0.0323 Hectares of land comprised in Re.Sy. No.433/5, Block No.31 of Kavassery-II Village, Alathur Taluk in Palakkad District. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the definition of paddy land or wet land. However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application in Form 5 under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ``` WP(C).No.6288 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008’) to remove the property from the Data Bank. The application has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the Agricultural Officer stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation, but left fallow. Since it is not clear whether the property was converted before 2008, the LLMC had recommended for verifying the same with the help of KSRSEC report and on inspection of site by the Revenue Divisional Office it is found that there are paddy cultivation near the land. 4. The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 contending, inter alia, that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act, 2008 and the 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 ``` WP(C).No.6288 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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 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.P5, 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 Revenue Divisional Officer has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. Further in spite of the recommendation of LLMC, KSRSEC report was not called for and examined. 6. 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 ``` WP(C).No.6288 OF 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` application simply stating that the 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. 7. Further, it is trite law that, merely because the property is lying fallow, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of the Act, 2008. 8. In **Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others** (2020 (2) KLT 192), a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are ``` WP(C).No.6288 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSRSEC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSRSEC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008.” ## 9. In **Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional** **Officer** [2023 (2) KLT 386], this Court held that just for the reason that the property is left fallow, the land cannot be brought within the definition of Paddy Land. This Court observed as follows:- “Going by the definition in S.2(xii) of “paddy land” in the Act, 2008, to bring in a land within the definition of paddy land, it should be suitable for paddy cultivation, but uncultivated and left fallow. Just for the reason that the property is left fallow, the land cannot be brought within the definition of paddy land but the Revenue Divisional Officer should be satisfied that the land is suitable for paddy ``` WP(C).No.6288 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` cultivation and left fallow and therefore only on satisfaction of the said twin conditions that a land could be treated as paddy land coming under the definition of S.2(xii) of the Act, 2008.” 10. In spite of the categorical declarations by this Court in the decisions cited above, the petitioner's application has been rejected on untenable grounds. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P5 order cannot be sustained and set aside the same, with a direction to the 2[nd] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application of the petitioner in Form 5 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 for KSRSEC report before the Agricultural Officer concerned, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition ``` WP(C).No.6288 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` along with a copy of this judgment before the 2[nd] respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` SPR ``` WP(C).No.6288 OF 2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.12.2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED30.05.2017ISSUEDBY4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RDOPKD/85/2022- J5 DATED 30.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. ```