Rajakumaran v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad and Agricultural Officer, Pirayiri, Palakkad District, Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 5225 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` RAJAKUMARAN RAJAKUMARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, THARUVAKKOD, KALLEKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 015. ``` ``` BY ADVS. RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY MAYA C.P. K.V.ANTONY VIJINA K. ARUL MURALIDHARAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD (DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008), PIN – 678 001. 2THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER PIRAYIRI OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PIRAYIRI PALAKKAD DISTRICT, (LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008), PIN – 678 004. ``` ``` SR.GP. - SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C).No.5225 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 0.0570 Hectares of land in Block No.20, Re.Sy.No.203/10-3 of Pirayiri Village, Palakkad Taluk in Palakkad 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 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.P5 application ``` WP(C).No.5225 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland 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.P6 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the LLMC has found that the land of the petitioner as well as the adjoining properties are capable of agricultural operations and that the land has been reclaimed after 2008 and therefore recommended to retain in the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 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’) to ``` WP(C).No.5225 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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.P6, 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 and LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. 6. This Court had held in the decision 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 ``` WP(C).No.5225 OF 2024 ``` ## **`5`** 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 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. In **Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has ``` WP(C).No.5225 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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. 9. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P6 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.P5 application 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 ``` WP(C).No.5225 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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 writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` SPR ``` WP(C).No.5225 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** - **`EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 8-92021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE PIRAYIRI VILLAGE OFFICE.`** - **`EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 12-1-2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE PIRAYIRI VILLAGE OFFICE.`** - **`EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 13-1-2022 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE PIRAYIRI VILLAGE OFFICE.`** - **`EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH/MAP WITH T.P. 8483 WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY OF PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PIRAYIRI.`** - **`EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT DATED 14-1-2021 SANS THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED THEREWITH.`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-7-2022 IN FILE NO. RDOPKD/3821/2022-J4 PASSED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT DISMISSING EXHIBIT P- 5 FORM-5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER.`** - **`EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER.`** ## **`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.`**