Reena Ashokan & K.S. Ashokan v State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 6683 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER(S):** REENA ASHOKAN AGED 54 YEARS W/O K.S. ASHOKAN, KUZHIPANIYIL HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.VINCENT ## **RESPONDENT(S):** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VELIYANNOOR VILLAGE, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634 4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, VELIYANNOOR, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634 5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER C BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN – 695033 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).6706/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 OF 2024 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 6706 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER(S):** K.S. ASHOKAN AGED 56 YEARS S/O K.N.SIVARAMAN NAIR, KUZHIPANIYIL HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634 BY ADV K.C.VINCENT ## **RESPONDENT(S):** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VELIYANNOOR VILLAGE, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634 4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, VELIYANNOOR, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634 5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT WP(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 OF 2024 **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** CENTER, C BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033 BY ADV. SMT. DEVI SHRI R, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).6683/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 OF 2024 4 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 of 2024 ------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6683/2024 is the wife of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6706/2024. It is submitted that the properties of the petitioners are situated in Block No.2, Re-survey No.201/2 of Veliyannoor Village. According to the petitioners, their properties are not a paddy land but observed as under mixed/plantation during 2011 as per Ext.P2 report from the KSREC. But the 2[nd] respondent rejected WP(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 OF 2024 5 Form-5 application submitted by the petitioners mechanically following the decision of the LLMC, placed by the Agricultural Officer instead of submitting a factual report, is the grievance of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the 2[nd] respondent failed to appreciate Ext.P2 and did not conduct any site inspection. Therefore, Ext.P3 order in these Writ petitions is unsustainable is the grievance. Hence these Writ petitions are filed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P3 order produced in these two Writ petitions. Ext.P3 is not a speaking order. Except relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the contentions of the petitioners are not adverted while passing Ext.P3 order. In _**Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court observed that, WP(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 OF 2024 6 it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the applications simply stating that Local Level Monitoring Commitee has decided not to remove the lands from the Data Bank. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, being the competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the lands and come to a conclusion that, removal of the lands from the Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the lands in question and 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. 6. In _**Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2023 (5) KLT 432], this Court observed that the predominant factor for consideration while considering Form 5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from WP(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 OF 2024 7 the Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible or feasible. 7. According to the petitioners, the impugned order is passed in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not applied his mind and simply accepted the report. It is also submitted that, the KSREC report is not properly considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The contention of the petitioners is that the status of the lands as on 12.08.2008 is not ascertained properly as per scientific process. 8. After going through the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force in the argument of the petitioners. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The contentions of the petitioners are not adverted by the 2[nd] respondent while passing the order. Petitioners have got a WP(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 OF 2024 8 grievance that the 2[nd] respondent has not inspected the premises before passing the impugned order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions: 1. Ext.P3 order in these two Writ petitions is set aside. 2. The 2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. The petitioners are free to submit an application before the appropriate authority for getting a fresh KSREC report within two weeks from the date of WP(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 OF 2024 9 receipt of a copy of this judgment and if such an application is filed, the authority concerned will do the needful to obtain the same, in accordance with law. If KSREC report is available, the same will be considered by the 2[st] respondent. 4. The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of these Writ Petitions with exhibits before the 2[nd] respondent for compliance. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6706/2024** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 371/2018 OF RAMAPURAM, S.R.O., DATED 13.03.2018 EXHIBIT P2 . A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02.03.2020 BEARING NO. A/172/2015/KSREC/008310/19 RECEIVED FROM THE KERALA REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS WITH FILE NO. 56/2022 DATED 25.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BUILDING WP(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 OF 2024 11 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6683/2024** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 370/I/2018 OF RAMAPURAM S.R.O., DATED 13.03.2018 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02.03.2020 BEARING NO. A/172/2015/KSREC/008310/19 RECEIVED FROM THE KERALA REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS WITH FILE NO. 57/2022 DATED 25.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPERTY RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE