Pramod George P v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Thrissur Municipal Corporation; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thrissur

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 9129 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **PRAMOD GEORGE P, AGED 60 YEARS S/O GEORGE, PORATHUR HOUSE, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680002** **BY ADVS. ASOK KUMAR K.P. ALEXANDER K.C. ABDUL HAMEED RAFI RAKESH S MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FIRST FLOOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER THRISSUR KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680001 3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 9129 OF 2024 : 2 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P7 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 0.0202 Hectares of land in Sy.No.1729/7 of Thrissur Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District. 3. According to the petitioner, the said property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008' for short). However, it has been wrongly included in **WP(C) NO. 9129 OF 2024 : 3 :** the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2008' for short). The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P6 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Rules, 2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P7 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the land is low lying and there are fallow paddy fields nearby and the LLMC has recommended to retain the subject land in the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner impugns Ext.P7 contending, _inter alia,_ that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against the provisions of **WP(C) NO. 9129 OF 2024 : 4 :** the Act, 2008 and the binding precedents of this Court. It is also contended that the RDO should have called for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (for short, 'the KSRSEC') before disposing of the Form 5 application to ascertain the exact nature 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. Rule 4(4E) of the Rules, 2008 provides that, on receipt of the application in Form 5, the RDO shall call for a report from the Agricultural Officer in the case of paddy land and that of the Village Officer in the **WP(C) NO. 9129 OF 2024 : 5 :** case of wetland. Rule 4(4F) provides that, on receipt of the report as above, the RDO shall, if deems necessary, verify the contents of the Data Bank by direct inspection or with the help of satellite images prepared by Central/State Scientific institutions and Technological pass orders on the On a appropriate application. perusal of Ext.P7, 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 upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and the recommendation of the LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. 6. This Court has held in **Arthasasthra** **Ventures (India) LLP** v. **State of Kerala** [2022 **WP(C) NO. 9129 OF 2024 : 6 :** (7) KHC 591] that, the Revenue Divisional Officer must, while considering an application for removal of a property from the data bank consider the question whether the land was a paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. 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 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 **WP(C) NO. 9129 OF 2024 : 7 :** 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, this Court in **Aparna Sasi Menon** v. **Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (6) KHC 83] has held that the predominant factor for determination while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. 8. In spite of the categorical declarations by this Court in the decisions cited above, the petitioner's application has been rejected, solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, **WP(C) NO. 9129 OF 2024 : 8 :** who recommended not to remove the land from the Data Bank. None of the parameters for consideration of a Form 5 application has been taken into account while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P7 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P6 application in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision after considering the KSRSEC report to be obtained at the expense of the petitioner and other relevant factors mentioned in Rule 4(4F), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report of the KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply before the Agricultural Officer concerned for KSRSEC report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this **WP(C) NO. 9129 OF 2024 : 9 :** judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with the copy of the judgment before the RDO. The writ petition is disposed of. ## **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB **WP(C) NO. 9129 OF 2024 : 10 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 5513/2013 DATED 09.12.2013 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, THRISSUR Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.KL08016007570 DATED 14.12.2023 Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF THRISSUR VILLAGE Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF FAIR VALUE NOTIFICATION DATED 25.03.2023 Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 23.05.2022 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.10.2023**