High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; Ext.P7 set aside; RDO di...
Sajeesh S. v. State of Kerala and Others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 11363 OF 2023
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Viju Abraham
- Judgment Date
- 2023-11-08
- Court Decision / Holding
- Ext.P7 is interfered with and set aside. The Respondent-2 (RDO) is directed to independently reassess the Form-5 application, considering whether KSRSEC data is necessary and to act in consultation with the Agricultural Officer. If a KSRSEC report is required, it must be obtained and submitted within two weeks of the request; otherwise, the application should be decided based on KSRSEC validation and Agricultural Officer input, and in any case within one month from the copy of the judgment. The Court also clarifies that the Life Mission Project status should influence the timely disposal of the matter.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition allowed; Ext.P7 set aside; RDO directed to reconsider Form-5 with possible KSRSEC report and to decide within specified timelines; Life Mission Project status to be considered in disposition.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sajeesh S.
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Government Secretariat, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram
- Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parakkunnam, Vidyuth Nagar, Palakkad
- Nenmara Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary
- Local Level Monitoring Committee for Nenmara Grama Panchayath, represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • K. Anand N. Rajesh (Palakkad)
- • Ameer Salim
Counsels for Respondents
- • N. Satheesh Kumar (Nenmara)
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioner, Sajeesh S., sought removal of his 2.02 acres of land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, challenging Ext.P7, which rejected his Form-5 application. He asserts the land—a pakka-filled Nilam with vegetation and adjacent houses—was not a paddy land at the time the Act came into force and that his inclusion in the Life Mission Project (Ext.P6) underscores the need for re-evaluation. The LLMC’s decision to retain the land in the Data Bank formed the basis of the denial, but the petitioner argues the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) must independently assess the land’s nature as on 24.12.2008 and not simply rely on the LLMC. The judgment traces a line of Kerala High Court decisions emphasizing (i) the Data Bank should contain cultivable paddy land and wetlands as of 24.12.2008, (ii) the decisive factor is whether the land could be paddy land on the Act’s onset, and (iii) that RDO should use scientific data (including KSRSEC satellite data) if needed. The court sets aside Ext.P7 and directs the RDO to reassess Form-5, calling for KSRSEC reports if necessary, and to decide within specified timelines, taking into account the Life Mission Project status and the cautions laid down by precedent.
Provisions of Law Cited
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Data Bank to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within LLMC jurisdiction (cited from Salim C.K.)
- The data bank is to reflect cultivable paddy land existing as on 24.12.2008 (Lalu P.S.)
- Character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008 matters for inclusion/exclusion (Joy v. RDO)
- Predominant factor for Form-5 is whether the land is capable of paddy cultivation (Aparna Sasi Menon)
- RDO must independently assess status and not rely solely on LLMC determinations (Muraleedharan Nair)
- If necessary, resort to scientific data including satellite photographs from KSRSEC (Arthasasthra Ventures)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that Ext.P7 relies solely on the LLMC’s decision without independent assessment by the RDO of the land’s nature as on 24.12.2008. He argues the data bank must reflect cultivable paddy land existing at the inception of the Rules and that the RDO should consult KSRSEC data (if needed) to determine whether the land was paddy land or wetland and fit for paddy cultivation. Since he is included in the Life Mission Project, a prompt, proper disposal is urged, with directions to obtain scientific data and ensure timely action as per precedents which mandate independent verification rather than blind deference to LLMC findings.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents rely on the LLMC’s decision not to remove the land from the Data Bank and contend that Form-5 should be disposed in accordance with the LLMC’s determinations and established data-bank criteria. They emphasize that the Act’s framework and prior judgments require careful consideration of whether the land was paddy/wetland at the time of 2008, and that the RDO may rely on available data and the LLMC’s conclusion, as long as it is supported by appropriate records.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others | 2017 (1) KHC 394 | Positive | Cited for the principle that data bank details should reflect cultivable paddy land and wetlands within LLMC jurisdiction. |
| Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala | 2020 (5) KHC 490 | Positive | Held that data bank comprises cultivable paddy land existing as on 24.12.2008. |
| Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector | 2021 (1) KLT 433 | Positive | Stated that the land’s character and fitness as of 12.08.2008 matters for inclusion/exclusion. |
| Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala | 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222 | Positive | Held that reliance on scientific data (including satellite data from KSRSEC) may be necessary. |
| Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer | 2023 (4) KLT 270 | Positive | Stated RDO must independently assess and not simply dismiss LLMC conclusions. |
| Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer | 2023 (5) KLT 432 | Positive | Predominant factor is whether land can be cultivated for paddy. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sajeesh S. v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945**
## **WP(C) NO. 11363 OF 2023**
## **PETITIONER:**
**SAJEESH S., AGED 36 YEARS S/O. SIVARAMAN,KUNNIL HOUSE, IDIYAMPOTTA, AYILOOR P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678510**
**BY ADVS. K.ANAND N.RAJESH (PALAKKAD) AMEER SALIM**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
|**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**|
|---|---|
||**REP. BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, DEPARTMENT OF**|
||**LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001**|
|**2**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**|
||**OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT**|
||**NAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001**|
|**3**|**NENMARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,**|
||**REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NENMARA - NELLIYAMPATHY RD, NENMARA,**|
||**PIN - 678508**|
|**4**|**THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR NENMARA GRAMA**|
||**PANCHAYATH,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,**|
||**NENMARA - NELLIYAMPATHY RD, NENMARA, PIN - 678508**|
||**BY ADVS.**|
||**N.SATHEESH KUMAR(NEMMARA)**|
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**GP - RIYAL DEVASSY**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WP(C) NO. 11363 OF 2023**
**2**
## **J U D G M E N T**
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P7 order whereby, Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the 2.02 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.95/22 of Nenmara Village, Chittrur Taluk in Palakkad District. The petitioner submits that he has purchased the said land for construction of a house. It is also submitted by the petitioner that other than the land covered by Ext.P1, he has no other land in his possession and the said fact is certified by the Village Officer, Nenmara vide Ext.P4. As per the documents and registered deeds, the nature of the land is described as 'Nilam', but the land is a pakka filled up land with a lot of vegetation and there are houses in the adjacent property of the petitioner's land, as is evident from Ext.P5 photographs.
3. The petitioner has a further contention that his name has been included in the 'Life Mission Project' of the 3[rd] respondent, as is evident from Ext.P6 Certificate. When the petitioner applied for a building permit for construction of a residential house, he was informed that as per records, the
**WP(C) NO. 11363 OF 2023**
**3**
property in question is a 'Paddy land'. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred an application in Form-5 to remove the property from the data bank, which has been rejected by Ext.P7.
4. The petitioner submits that on a perusal of Ext.P7 report, it clearly seen that the order has been issued solely relying on the decision of the Agricultural Officer and that there is no independent consideration by the 2[nd] respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner submits that the 2[nd] respondent while considering a Form-5 application, should independently consider the nature and lie of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
5. This Court in _**Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394]**_ has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in _**Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala[2020 (5) KHC 490]**_ has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the
**WP(C) NO. 11363 OF 2023**
**4**
date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In _**Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector[2021 (1)**_
_**KLT 433]**_ it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in
_**Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala[2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222]**_ has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. 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
**WP(C) NO. 11363 OF 2023**
**5**
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. Further, this Court in _**Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (5) KLT 432]**_ has held that the predominant factor for consideration 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.
6. In spite of these categorical declaration by this Court in a catena of judgments as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected solely relying on the decision of the LLMC, not to remove the land from the data bank.
7. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that Ext.P7 is liable to be interfered with and the same is accordingly set aside with a consequential direction to the 2[nd] respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the same. Since the petitioner has been included in the 'Life Mission Project', as is
**WP(C) NO. 11363 OF 2023**
**6**
evident from Ext.P6, the 2[nd] respondent should reconsider the matter at the earliest. If the 2[nd] respondent finds that the report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC) is necessary for a proper disposal of the application, appropriate steps shall be taken to call for the same at the earliest and if any such request is made in this regard the authority to issue the report shall see that the report is submitted without any delay at any rate within an outer limit of two weeks from the date of making such a request. If KSRSEC report is not necessary, application shall be considered and disposed on the basis of KSRSEC validation report and in consultation with the Agricultural Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall also take into consideration the dictum laid down by this Court in the decision cited _supra_ _**.**_ It is further ordered that, if the KSRSEC report is necessary for taking a final decision in the matter, a decision on Form-5 application shall be taken within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of KSRSEC report and if the 2[nd] respondent finds that no such report is required and application could be disposed of in the light of the KSRSEC validation report and in consultation with
**WP(C) NO. 11363 OF 2023**
**7**
the Agricultural Officer, the application shall be decided at the earliest at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
This Court is issuing a direction to consider the application in the shortest possible time in view of the fact that the petitioner is included in the Life Mission Project and this aspect should also be borne in mind by the 2[nd] respondent while issuing orders as directed above.
Sd/-
**VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE**
rp
**WP(C) NO. 11363 OF 2023**
**8**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11363/2023**
## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS**
- **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2607/2019 DATED 18.10.2019 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE NENMARA**
- **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 73794288 DATED 13.12.2022 OF NENMARA VILLAGE OFFICE**
- **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX NO. KL09021907649/2022 DATED 13.12.2022 IISSUED BY THE NENMARA VILLAGE OF CHITRUR TALUK**
- **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.118/2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NENMARA DATED 25.02.2020**
- **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VEGETATION AND NEARBY HOUSES OF THE PROPERTY**
- **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. SC3/711/2023 DATED 09.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**
**Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2022 IN FILE NO. RDOPKD/3690/2022-M2 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**