High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-06Writ petition disposed of with directions; Ext....

Priya Shiva Shankar Nair v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-03-06
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed; Ext.P4 is set aside. The 4th respondent (RDO) is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application (Ext.P2) in accordance with law and to take a decision after considering the KSRSEC report, which shall be obtained at the petitioner’s expense. The reconsideration must occur within two months from the date of receipt of the KSRSEC report. The petitioner shall apply for the KSRSEC report within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A copy of this judgment and the writ petition must be produced before the 4th respondent for compliance.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions; Ext.P4 set aside; RDO to reconsider Form 5 with KSRSEC input within two months, at petitioner's cost, after two weeks to apply for KSRSEC report; compliance within the specified period, with copies to the parties.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Priya Shiva Shankar Nair

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Agriculture Department
The District Collector, Collectorate, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam District
The District Level Authorized Committee represented by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office Fort Kochi
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office Fort Kochi
The Village Officer, Nadama Village
The Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer
The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thripunithura

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.V. Jayadeep Menon
• T.P. Ramesh (Thengumpillil)
• P. Krishnapriya
• Hariprasad K.

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT.R. Devi Shri - GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Priya Shiva Shankar Nair, is the absolute owner in possession of 2.00 ares of land in Nadama Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District. She challenges Ext.P4, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting her Form 5 application under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, intended to remove the property from the Data Bank. She contends that the land does not fall within the definitions of paddy land or wet land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and that the Data Bank entry is erroneous. The RDO’s decision relies largely on the Agricultural Officer’s report and the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) recommendation, without independent assessment or a KSRSEC input, and without verifying the land’s character as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act. The petitioner argues non-application of mind, violation of statutory provisions, and inconsistency with binding precedents requiring broader inquiry into the land’s status. The High Court has repeatedly held that the RDO must assess whether the land was paddy land on the critical date and whether removal would affect paddy cultivation or wetlands; decisions in Arthasasthra Ventures, Muraleedharan Nair, and Aparna Sasi Menon are cited. The Court sets aside Ext.P4 and directs the RDO to reconsider Form 5, with KSRSEC findings, within two months, at the petitioner’s cost.

Provisions of Law Cited

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, 2008Rule 4(4E) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 4(4F) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

null

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext.P4 is vitiated by non-application of mind and violates the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and binding precedents. She argues that the RDO should independently assess the land’s status as on 12.08.2008 and must obtain a KSRSEC report to ascertain the land’s nature, rather than relying solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report and LLMC. The Form 5 process requires the RDO to seek reports under Rule 4(4E) and, if necessary, verify the Data Bank with satellite imagery under Rule 4(4F). The petitioner asserts that the predominant question is whether the land can be cultivated as paddy and that removal should be guided by suitability and impact on paddy cultivation and wetlands, as held in Arthasasthra Ventures, Muraleedharan Nair, and Aparna Sasi Menon. She seeks remand for independent assessment and inclusion of KSRSEC findings, with the order executed within a two-month window.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend Ext.P4 reflects compliance with the statutory framework, relying on the Agricultural Officer’s report and LLMC recommendation. They maintain that the RDO acted within its scope by relying on available reports and that no independent reassessment was required at that stage. They emphasize the need to follow established processes under the Rules and argue that KSRSEC input, while relevant, was not mandatory in Ext.P4. The respondents also rely on the LLMC’s stance and the prevailing practice of deferring removal decisions to the LLMC’s findings, arguing that the writ petition should not upset interim administrative choices unless clearly improper.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	Court held that the RDO must consider whether the land was paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act and whether it is suitable for paddy cultivation.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Court held that removal from Data Bank cannot be defeated by merely relying on LLMC; the RDO must independently assess the land’s status.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (6) KHC 83	Positive	Court held that the predominant factor is whether the land can be used for paddy cultivation.

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 Priya Shiva Shankar Nair 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 WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 8869 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` PRIYA SHIVA SHANKAR NAIR AGED 54 YEARS W/O. SHIVA SHANKAR BHASKARAN NAIR, E 28, IIT QUARTERS, IIT GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN – 781 039. ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.V.JAYADEEP MENON T.P.RAMESH (THENGUMPILLIL) P.KRISHNAPRIYA HARIPRASAD K. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695 001.`** - **`2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 030.`** - **`3 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE FORT KOCHI, FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 001.`** - **`4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE FORT KOCHI, FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 001.`** - **`5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER NADAMA VILLAGE, POST OFFICE ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 301.`** - **`6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,`** ``` WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIPUNITHURA, MINI CIVIL STATION, MAIN ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 301. 7THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIPUNITHURA, MINI CIVIL STATION, MAIN ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 301. SMT.R.DEVI SHRI - GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 02.00 Ares of land in Block No.123, Re.Sy. No.24/7 of Nadama Village, Kanayannoor Taluk in Ernakulam District. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wet land as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008’). However, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the Rules’) before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the ``` WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P4 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the property is seen as ‘Nilam’ and the LLMC has recommended not to remove the subject land from the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 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 KSRSEC’) before disposing of 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 ``` WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. Rule 4 (4E) of the Rules 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 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 Technological Institutions and pass appropriate orders on the application. On a perusal of Ext.P4, 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 LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. 6. This Court had held in the decision in ``` WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` **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, 2008 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 the 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 ``` WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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. In **Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering Form 5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from the 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, who recommended not to remove the land from the Data Bank. None of the parameters for consideration of Form 5 application has been taken into account while passing the impugned order. ``` WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` 9. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P4 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 4[th] respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision after considering the KSRSEC report which shall 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 judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 4[th] respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` SPR ``` WP(C).No.8869 OF 2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 09.01.2024 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE NADAMA. EXHIBIT P2TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER FORM 5 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES, 2008 DATED NIL. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIPUNITHURA DATED 25.03.2022. EXHIBIT P4TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.03.2023. EXHIBIT P5TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT 23.02.2024 IN WP (C) NO.3747 OF 2024 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. ```