Ranjith v. District Collector, Malappuram and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 7TH** # **PHALGUNA, 1945** # **WP(C) NO. 7275 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **RANJITH AGED 33 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN, THONDIYIL HOUSE, ARAKKUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322** BY ADVS. AMJATHA D.A. MUHASIN K.M. FARHANA K.H. ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTRATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676505** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHORNUR - PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679322** - **3 THE TAHSILDAR ERNAD TALUK OFFICE, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, VAYAPPARAPADI, VELLARANGAL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676517** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KAVANUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KAVANUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673639** - **5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER KAVANUR KRISHI BHAVAN, KAVANUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673639** ``` WPC No.7275 of 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` **6 THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY** **BY SRI. VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHY.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ``` WPC No.7275 of 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P2 whereby Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 4.05 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.208/6-1-3 of Kavannur Village in Ernad Taluk, Malappuram District, by virtue of Ext.P1 document. 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' for short). However, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed an application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) ``` WPC No.7275 of 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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.P2 stating that on going through the photograph, it is convinced that the property is lying at a lower level than the road. Further, the Agricultural officer has reported that if the land is converted, that will affect the natural flow of water and will adversely affect the ecology and recommended not to remove the land from the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 contending _inter alia_ that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act 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 ascertain the status of the land ``` WPC No.7275 of 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. 5. 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, 2008. On a perusal of Ext.P2, 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, 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer 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. Further, merely for the reason that the land is lying low, the same cannot be included in the Data Bank. 6. 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 ``` WPC No.7275 of 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 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. In **Aparna Sasi Menon** v. **Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (4) KLT 270] this Court has held that the ``` WPC No.7275 of 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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. 7. This Court in **Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram** **[2021 (6) KHC 316]** has held that merely for the reason that the land is lying low and is waterlogged, the same cannot be included as paddy land in the data bank. 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. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P2 order cannot be sustained and I 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 ``` WPC No.7275 of 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` a decision in the matter after obtaining the KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report from 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 this writ petition along with the copy of the judgment before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The writ petition is disposed as above. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** al/-.27.02.2024. ``` WPC No.7275 of 2024 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **A PPENDIX OF WP(C) 7275/2024** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.06.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER**