Rizhin Sooraj v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Others

**WP(C) NO. 7592 OF 2024** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 7592 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **RIZHIN SOORAJ AGED 31 YEARS D/O SOORAJ, ATTUPARAMBATH HOUSE, B5 KENT NALUKETTU, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, VENNALA P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682028** **BY ADVS. ASOK KUMAR K.P. RAKESH S MENON ABDUL HAMEED RAFI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FIRST FLOOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003** **2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KAIPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER , KAIPPARAMBU KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680541** **3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KAIPARAMBU, MUNDUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680541** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT.AMMNIKUTTY.K, SR.GP, SRI.SANTHOSH P PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 7592 OF 2024** **2** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** ## **--------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 7592 of 2024** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : i) Declare that exhibit P7 Order is against law, arbitrary and per se illegal. ii) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P7 order of rejection of Form 5 application by the 1[st] respondent and issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate Writ, orders or directions quashing the same iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction to the 1[st] respondent to reconsider Exhibit P5 application adverting to the observations in Ext.P6 KSREC report in its true spirit, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. iv) To dispense with the production of English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. v) Render such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[sic] **WP(C) NO. 7592 OF 2024** **3** 2. Petitioner is in absolute ownership, possession and enjoyment of an extent of converted paddy land measuring to 0.1983 hectares comprised in Survey No. 87/2-1 of Peramangalam Village, Thrissur Taluk is the submission. The petitioner acquired the above land by virtue of settlement Deed dated 04.12.2020. The land is in the possession of the petitioner as per Exhibit P-1 document is the further submission. Revenue Records including Basic Tax Receipts reveals that the petitioner’s land belongs to the classification of paddy land. The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act came into effect from 12.08.2008 and the term paddy land was redefined. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3[rd] Respondent included the land in the Data bank without considering the ground realities is the submission. Hence, the petitioner submitted a Form-5 application as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules to the 1[st] respondent. But the 1[st] respondent did not apply his mind and mechanically decided that the land is paddy land and rejected Form 5 application is the submission of **WP(C) NO. 7592 OF 2024** **4** the petitioner. It is also submitted that the KSREC report is not considered and there was no physical verification of the land. Ext.P6 is the KSREC report. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 order rejecting the Form 5 application, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 is not a speaking order. Except relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the contention of the petitioner is not adverted while passing Ext.P7 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 Committee 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 **WP(C) NO. 7592 OF 2024 5** 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 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, the KSREC report is not properly considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The contention of the petitioner is that the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 is not ascertained properly as per scientific process. **WP(C) NO. 7592 OF 2024** **6** 8. After going through the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 1[st] 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.P7 order is set aside. b) The 1[st] 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 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 **WP(C) NO. 7592 OF 2024 7** report is available, the same will be considered by the 1[st] respondent. If fresh KSREC report is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to consider the Form 5 application only within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report from KSREC. d) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. ## **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS **WP(C) NO. 7592 OF 2024** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7592/2024** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 2040/2020 DATED 04.12.2020 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, MUNDUR** **Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 29.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERAMANGALAM** **Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK BEARING NO. A4-585/2021 DATED 23.01.2021 IN RESPECT OF PERAMANGALAM VILLAGE** **Exhibit P-4 . TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND** **Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 NO. 2/2022/969673 DATED 9.03.2022 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P- 6 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE KSREC REPORT DATED 13.03.2020** **Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 5346/2023 DATED 30.10.2023 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT**