High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-15Writ petition disposed of with directions: Ext....

SANTHA H. KARTHA v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI; AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOTTANIKKARA; VILLAGE OFFICER, KUREEKKAD VILLAGE; DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 10419 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
Judgment Date: 2024-03-15
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P5 order set aside; 1st respondent to reconsider Form 5 application expeditiously, within three months from receipt of this judgment. Petitioner may file for KSREC report within two weeks; if available, KSREC report will be considered by the 1st respondent. If fresh KSREC report is sought, the 1st respondent shall decide Form 5 within three months from receipt of the KSREC report. The petitioner shall furnish certified copy of this judgment and the petition, and Ext P3 and the judgments cited shall be considered. The 1st respondent shall consider Ext P3 and the dicta in Adani Infrastructures and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State Kerala (2014 (1) KLT 774), Lalu v. State of Kerala (2020 (5) KLT 712), Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022 (7) KHC 561), Mureleedharan Nair R v. RDO (2023 (4) KHC 524), Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2021 (1) KLT 433) and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO (2023 (6) KHC 83).
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions: Ext.P5 set aside; 1st respondent to reconsider Form 5 within three months; petitioner to pursue KSREC report; KSREC, if available, to be considered; if KSREC report is sought, decision on Form 5 within three months of receipt; consider Ext P3 and cited judgments; certified copy to be produced.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SANTHA H. KARTHA

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, RDO Office, Fort Kochi, Ernakulam
Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Chottanikara
Village Officer, Kureekkad Village, Kanayannoor Taluk
Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Center, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. K. Soyuz
• E. V. Babychan

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Amminikutty.K, Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext P5, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) dismissing the petitioner’s Form 5 application to delete land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioner, Santha H. Kartha, owns 1.60 acres in Re Survey No. 74/1-2-8, Block 11, Kureekkad village, Kanayannoor Taluk, classified as Nilam, and contends the land lies in a developed residential area (Golden Shore Villas) with granite foundations on all sides. The predecessor in interest had Ext P3 certifying that the land is neither paddy land nor wet land and that conversion occurred before the Act 2008. The petitioner submitted Ext P4 in Form No. 5 to delete the land from the Data Bank, but Ext P5 was passed without considering Ext P3 or obtaining a KSREC report. The court found Ext P5 to be non-speaking and based only on the Agricultural Officer’s report, falling short of independent analysis required by precedent (Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO) and guidelines in Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO. It noted that several prior decisions (Adani Infrastructures, Lalu, Arthasasthra Ventures, Joy, Aparna Sasi Menon) should guide the court, but ultimately directed a fresh, reasoned consideration. The judgment emphasizes due process, objective evaluation of the land’s status, and the need for a KSREC data bank review where appropriate.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Requirement of a speaking order
Independent assessment by the Revenue Divisional Officer before removal from the Data Bank
Predominant factor for Form 5 is feasibility of paddy cultivation
Judgments cited should be considered as persuasive authority

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext P5 is not a speaking order and the 1st respondent relied on the KSREC report without independently considering Ext P3 and without obtaining a KSREC report as required when Form 5 is considered. The land’s current Nilam status and its location in a developed residential area undermine the inference that removal from the Data Bank would affect paddy cultivation or wetlands. Ext P3 shows the land is not paddy or wet land and was converted before Act 2008. The petitioner seeks quashing Ext P5 and directing reconsideration in Form 5, with sufficient regard to Ext P3, KSREC data, and relevant judgments (Adani, Lalu, Joy, Aparna Sasi Menon, Mureleedharan Nair R, Arthasasthra Ventures). The petitioner also requests disposal with costs and dispensation of translating vernacular documents.

Contentions of Respondents

The Respondents contend that Ext P5 was a reasoned decision grounded in the available reports, including Ext P3 and KSREC data; the decision to delete from the Data Bank must balance protecting paddy cultivation and wetlands. The impugned order reflects ongoing statutory processes and the KSREC data and local committee findings, and there is no requirement that every aspect be elaborated in a lengthy order. Ext P3 indicated the land is not paddy/wetland, and the applicant’s Form 5 should be adjudicated on that basis; the court should not impermissibly substitute its own conclusions where the record supports the RDO’s action.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Adani Infrastructures and Developers Pvt.Ltd. v. State Kerala	2014 (1) KLT 774	Mentioned Only	Cited for dicta but not bindingly applied in the decision.
Lalu v. State of Kerala	2020 (5) KLT 712	Mentioned Only	Cited as authority but not expressly followed or distinguished on the key issue.
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. state of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 561	Mentioned Only	Cited for persuasive guidance; not explicitly applied to the core point.
Mureleedharan Nair R v. RDO	2023 (4) KHC 524	Positive	Court relies on principle of independent assessment by the RDO and not merely on committee conclusions.
Joy v. Revenue Divisional officer / Sub collector	2021 (1) KLT 433	Mentioned Only	Cited as guiding authority but not expressly applied.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO	2023 (6) KHC 83	Positive	Govt held that the predominant factor for Form 5 is the cultivability of paddy.
Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Court quotes this case to emphasize that an order cannot be dismissed solely on a committee decision; independent assessment is required.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 SANTHA H. KARTHA v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI; AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOTTANIKKARA; VILLAGE OFFICER, KUREEKKAD VILLAGE; DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 10419 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **SANTHA H. KARTHA AGED 70 YEARS** **W/O K.N. HARIHARAN KARTHA 'SHAKTI', HARITHA ROAD, VENNALA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682028** **BY ADVS.** **P.K.SOYUZ** - **E.V.BABYCHAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI P.O ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001** - **2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOTTANIKKARA, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682312** - **3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUREEKKAD VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682312** - **4 THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER 'C' BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 BY ADV.** **SMT.AMMINIKUTTY.K, SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO.10419 OF 2024 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.10419 of 2024** **------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P5 order and quash the same. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to reconsider Ext.P4 application in form No. 5, in the light of Ext P3 report and in the light of Judgments in Adani Infrastructures and Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. State Kerala, 2014 (1) KLT 774, Lalu V. State of Kerala 2020(5) KLT 712 , Joy V. Revenue Divisional officer / Sub collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433 , Arthasasthra Ventures (India ) LLP V. state of Kerala , 2022 (7) KHC 561 and in Mureleedharan Nair R V. RDO , WP(C) NO.10419 OF 2024 3 2023 (4 ) KHC 524. Aparna Sasi Menon V. RDO , 2023 (6) KHC 83 and direct to make necessary corrections in Ext P2 data bank by deleting the land covered by Ext P1 tax receipt from the data bank. iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petition. iv) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.” _[SIC]_ 2. The petitioner is in ownership and in possession of 1.60 Ares of land comprised in ReSurvey Number 74/1-2-8 Block No. 11 of Kureekkad village, Kanayannoor Taluk. The above mentioned land is classified as Nilam in the BTR. According to the petitioner, the above said land is in a developed residential colony named 'Golden Shore Villas' and there are granite foundations on all the 4 sides of the land. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the land is surrounded by road, and other converted lands. It is submitted that the land was irreversibly converted WP(C) NO.10419 OF 2024 4 much before and it was not a cultivable land or suitable land for paddy cultivation at the time of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2008'). The 3[rd] respondent had issued Ext.P3 certificate to the predecessor in interest stating that the land is neither a paddy land nor a wet land and the land was converted before the commencement of Act 2008. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application in Form No.5 before the 1[st] respondent to delete the land from the data bank. But without considering Ext.P3 report or without obtaining a report from the 4[th] respondent, the 1[st] respondent has rejected Ext.P4 application as per Ext.P5 order. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1[st] respondent has not considered the judgments in **Adani Infrastructures and Developers Pvt.Ltd. v. State Kerala** [2014 (1) KLT 774], **Lalu V. State of Kerala** [2020(5) KLT 712], WP(C) NO.10419 OF 2024 5 **Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. state of Kerala** [2022 (7) KHC 561], **Mureleedharan Nair R V. RDO** [2023 (4) KHC 524], **Joy v. Revenue Divisional officer / Sub collector** [2021 (1) KLT 433] and **Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO** [2023 (6) KHC 83] before passing Ext.P5 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 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.P5 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 WP(C) NO.10419 OF 2024 6 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 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 WP(C) NO.10419 OF 2024 7 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. 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: i) Ext.P5 order is set aside. WP(C) NO.10419 OF 2024 8 ii) 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. iii) 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 report is available, the same will be considered by the 1[st] respondent. If fresh KSREC report is called for, the WP(C) NO.10419 OF 2024 9 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 the KSREC. iv) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. - v) While deciding the matter, the 1[st] respondent shall consider Ext.P3 and also the dictum laid down in **Adani Infrastructures and Developers Pvt.Ltd. v. State Kerala** [2014 (1) KLT 774], **Lalu v. State of Kerala** [2020(5) KLT 712], **Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. state of Kerala** [2022 (7) KHC 561], **Mureleedharan Nair R v.** WP(C) NO.10419 OF 2024 10 **RDO** [2023 (4) KHC 524], **Joy v. Revenue Divisional officer / Sub collector** [2021 (1) KLT 433] and **Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO** [2023 (6) KHC 83]. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO.10419 OF 2024 11 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10419/2024** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.09.2023 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 23.02.2012** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RDOCHN/8507/2022-K18/KDIS DATED 24.10.2023 OF THE 1 ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**