Prasannakumari v. The District Collector and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 2ND MAGHA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 130 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **PRASANNAKUMARI, AGED 55 YEARS D/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR M.K, PRASANNA HOUSE, VALIYAKUNNAM, PERUMPETTY, MARAMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689549** **BY ADVS. SHAKTHI PRAKASH AMJATHA D.A. FARHANA K.H. MUHASIN K.M.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR**| |---|---| ||**2ND FLOOR, COLLECTORATE ROAD,**| ||**CHITTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645**| |**2**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER**| ||**THIRUVALLA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALIKARA ROAD,**| ||**THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689101**| |**3**|**THE TAHSILDAR**| ||**MALLAPPALLY TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM ROAD,**| ||**CIVIL STATION, MALLAPPALLY,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689585**| |**4**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER**| ||**PERUMPETTY VILLAGE OFFICE, RANNI -**| ||**MALLAPPALLY ROAD, PERUMPETTY,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689592**| |**5**|**THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER**| ||**KOTTANAD KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTTANAD,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689615**| |**6**|**THE DIRECTOR**| ||**KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,**| ||**VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033**| **WP(C) NO. 130 OF 2024 : 2 :** **GP.SMT.DEVISREE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 130 OF 2024 : 3 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 application in Form-5 filed under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Rules, 2008 has been rejected by the 2[nd] respondent vide Ext.P3 solely on the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer and the recommendation of the LLMC. 2. The is the absolute owner in petitioner possession of 17.40 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.72/8 of Perumbatty Village, Mallapally Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property has been wrongly included as 'nilam' in the Data Bank. He has filed Ext.P2 application in Form-5 before the 2[nd] respondent for removing the property **WP(C) NO. 130 OF 2024 : 4 :** from the Data Bank. The 2[nd] respondent called for a report from the Agricultural Officer who reported that on an inspection by the LLMC, the petitioner's property is found to be under cultivation with coconut trees, arecanut trees and plantains and is not a converted/reclaimed land and therefore, has to be retained in the Data Bank. Solely based on the said report, the 2[nd] respondent has, vide Ext.P3, rejected Ext.P2 application. The petitioner states that the land was converted even before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2008' for short) and that if a scientific report was obtained from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC), the nature of the property as on the date of commencement of the Act could have been ascertained. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed **WP(C) NO. 130 OF 2024 : 5 :** challenging Ext.P3. 4. The relevant consideration for inclusion of the property as a paddy land or wetland is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act of 2008. On a perusal of Ext.P3, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act of 2008, the 2[nd] respondent/RDO has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and the recommendation of the LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. This Court has held in **Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP** v. **State of Kerala** [2022 (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 **WP(C) NO. 130 OF 2024 : 6 :** and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. 5. 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 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. **WP(C) NO. 130 OF 2024 : 7 :** 6. Reliance upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC alone will not be sufficient while taking a decision on an application under Form-5. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside and there will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to consider Ext.P2 application in Form No.5 and take a decision in the matter after calling for the KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the report from the KSRSEC. It is made clear that the petitioner shall make necessary application before the Agricultural Officer for obtaining the KSRSEC report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB **WP(C) NO. 130 OF 2024 : 8 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.05.2023** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11/03/2022** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER**