Rejimon Thomas v. District Collector, Palakkad and Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 4163 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER(S):`** ``` REJIMON THOMAS AGED 58 YEARS, ``` ``` S/O. THOMAS JOHN, KALARITHARA, PERUMBANACHI P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686536 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` P.R.VENKATESH MAITHRI SRIKANT ASHA P.KURIAKOSE LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT(S):`** - **`1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD., PIN - 678001`** - **`2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PARAKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001`** - **`3 THE TAHSILDAR ALATHUR TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678542`** - **`4 KANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678686`** - **`5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678683`** - **`BY ADV.`** - **`SMT. AMMINIKKUTTY, SR. GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.4163 OF 2024 ``` 2 # **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------** **W.P.(C) No.4163 of 2024 ------------------------------------Dated this the 02[nd ] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P9; b) Declare that in view of conversion already effected in the adjoining lands by issuance of KLU order and the construction effected therein, petitioner cannot be insisted to cultivate an area as small as 15 cents nor should he be denied permission under Form 5 merely citing impeding of free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy field; c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to allow Ext P8 application in Form-5; ``` WP(C) NO.4163 OF 2024 ``` 3 d) Issue such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case; and e) Dispense with production of English translation of vernacular documents.” [SIC] 2. The petitioner submitted an application under Form 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 for deletion of the land owned by him from the Data Bank which is situated in Re. Sy. No.828/17-3 of Kannambra Village. Exhibit P8 is the application. The same is rejected as per Ext.P9 order. According to the petitioner the property is actually surrounded by various buildings as also abutting the National Highway on the southern side of the property. It is also the case of the petitioner that permission had been granted to others in the adjoining sub division No.828/18 and converted long back. It is also submitted that in the decision in **George Varghese** ``` WP(C) NO.4163 OF 2024 ``` 4 **vs. District Collector** [2023 (6) KLT 386], this Court observed that the land is suitable for cultivation should not be a reason to reject the application. The counsel also relied the Judgment of this Court in **Aparna Sasi Menon vs. RDO** [2023 (5) KLT 432], in which it is held that “in very small plots of land which are surrounded by commercial or residential buildings, though such land is described as paddy land in revenue records and though it may be technically possible to cultivate land with paddy, still such cultivation will not be ordinarily possible and financially feasible.” Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P9 order and hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P9 order. Ext.P9 is not a speaking order. Except relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the contention of the ``` WP(C) NO.4163 OF 2024 ``` 5 petitioner is not adverted while passing Ext.P9 order. In **Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court observed that, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that Local Level Monitoring Commitee has decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank. 5. 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 the Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land 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 6 ``` WP(C) NO.4163 OF 2024 ``` 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 or feasible. 7. According to the petitioner, 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, it is mandatory on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer to call for a report from the KSREC to ascertain the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 when the Act came into force. It is submitted that the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 can be ascertained only through a scientific process. 8. After going through the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force 7 ``` WP(C) NO.4163 OF 2024 ``` in the argument of the petitioner. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 2[nd] respondent while passing the order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) Ext.P9 order is set aside. b) The 2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. c) The petitioner is free to submit an application before the appropriate authority for getting the KSREC report within two weeks from the date of ``` WP(C) NO.4163 OF 2024 ``` 8 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. d) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 2[nd] respondent for compliance. Sd/- nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` WP(C) NO.4163 OF 2024 ``` 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4163/2024`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 2654/2011 OF SRO, VADAKKENCHERY` - `EXHIBIT P2 RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK IN RELATION TO THE SY. NO. 828 OF KANNAMBRA VILLAGE` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 31.03.2022 OF THE PROPERTY` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.7.2023` ``` EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF TANDAPER DATED 11.8.2022 ``` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF SURVEY SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNAMBRA-II VILLAGE` - `EXHIBIT P7 SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAND` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM5 AS PER RULE 4 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES DATED 27.8.2022` - `EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.9.2023 REJECTING EXT P8 APPLICATION BY THE RDO` ## RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL ## //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE