Sabu Parameswaran v. Mattoor Village Office, Kalady Grama Panchayath Office, Local Level Monitoring Committee Office, Kalady Agricultural Office, Revenue Divisional Office, Ernakulam

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 6453 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` SABU PARAMESWARAN AGED 47 YEARS MANGALA HOUSE, PIRARROOR PO, KALADY, PIN - 683574 ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.M.ARUN DAS BIBIN VARGHESE SANTHOSH KUMAR M.R. K.ARUN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 THE MATTOOR VILLAGE OFFICE REPRESENTED BY ITS VILLAGE OFFICER, MATTOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683574` - `2 THE KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683574` - `3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OFFICE REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683574` - `4 THE KALADY AGRICULTURAL OFFICE REPRESENTED BY ITS AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KALADY` - `AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683574` - `5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE REPRESENTED BY ITS RTE VENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683574.` ``` BY SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` - `22.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:` ``` WP(C) NO.6453 of 2024 ``` 2 ## P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------ ## W.P.(C) No.6453 of 2024 ------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd ] day of February, 2024 ## JUDGMENT The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command 1[st] and 5[th] respondent to act upon and reconsider and reexamine the application given by the petitioner and also perform the duties of other respondents on the file of petitioner and petitioner also seeks for a permission to make use of the property for other purposes by invoking Clause 6 of Kerala Land Utilization Order by an application before the competent authority within a time frame B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command the 3[rd] respondent to reconsider and reexamine the land and all relevant documents of the land and act upon the application given by the petitioner and also perform the duties of other respondents on the file of petitioner within a time frame and also to remove the ``` WP(C) NO.6453 of 2024 ``` 3 property of petitioner from the data bank as cultivable land by 1[st] , 4[th] and 5[th] respondents and change the status of property of petitioner from "nilam" to "purayidom" by the respondents within a time frame: C. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command all the respondents to act upon the application of the petitioner and correct the mistake in the revenue records of the petitioner by reconsidering it. D. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command respondents to change the status in revenue records of the property of the petitioner and change the status of the property of the petitioner from "nilam" to "purayidom"; E. To grant any other further or consequential reliefs, including any interim reliefs, as may be prayed for and deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court; [SIC] 2. The petitioner residing with his family in the house situated in Block No.027 in Re-Sy.No.378/3-5, having an extent of 2.43 Ares, situated in the limit of the Mattoor Vilalge, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District, is the submission. According to the petitioner, his ``` WP(C) NO.6453 of 2024 ``` 4 property is mistakenly included in the data bank prepared by the Office of the Agriculture, Kalady. It is submitted that in all revenue records, the property is mistakenly recorded as nilam but actually this property in its usage and in its origin is purayidam. It is also submitted that the property of the petitioner and nearby properties of the petitioner are used for residential purposes for the last several decades. According to the petitioner, he submitted an application before the 5[th] respondent in Form - 5 for correction in the revenue records. Now, as per Ext.P7, the application is rejected. It is submitted that the 5[th] respondent - Revenue Divisional officer, has not considered the contentions of the petitioner and the ground realities. Hence, this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the ``` WP(C) NO.6453 of 2024 ``` 5 ## 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 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 ``` WP(C) NO.6453 of 2024 ``` 6 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 ``` WP(C) NO.6453 of 2024 ``` 7 status of the land 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 petitioner. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 5[th ] 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 5[th] 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 ``` WP(C) NO.6453 of 2024 ``` 8 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 report is available, the same will be considered by the 5[th] respondent. d) If an application for KSREC report is submitted and the same is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to pass orders in Form - 5 application only within three months from the date of receipt of the report from the KSREC. e) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 5[th] respondent for compliance. Sd/- smv P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE ``` WP(C) NO.6453 of 2024 ``` 9 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6453/2024` ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS ``` - `Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FROM THE MATTOOR VILLAGE DATED 02/12/2023` - `Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4056/2004 OF SUB REGISTER OFFICE SREEMOOLANAGARAM, DATED 29-11-2004` - `Exhibit P3 THE RECEIPTS OF THARAM MATTAL` - `Exhibit P4 LOCATION SKETCH FROM THE MATTOOR VILLAGE OFFICE` - `Exhibit P5 THE COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IN DATA BANK` - `Exhibit P6 THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WITH NO. 1/2022/956189 DATED 28/02/2022 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT OFFICE` - `Exhibit P7 THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPLICATION NO. 1/2022/956189 DATED 18/5/2023 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P8 THE CERTIFICATE NO. A7-6520/23 DATED 13/12/2023 FROM 2ND RESPONDENT`