Saranya P.C. v. State of Kerala & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ## WP(C) NO. 9197 OF 2024 ## PETITIONER/S: SARANYA P.C. AGED 31 YEARS W/O RENISH T.A, THAMARASSERY HOUSE, UDAYA NAGAR, CHOWANNUR PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680517 BY ADVS. ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN STEFFY V.J. JOHNY K. JOHN ## RESPONDENTS: - 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 - 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 - 3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE CHOWANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOWANNUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680517 - 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680517 ## OTHER PRESENT: SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC No.9197/2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The petitioner is the owner and in absolute possession of the property having an extent of 1 Are 61 Square meter in Sy. No.265/4-4 and 2 Are 2 Sq.Meter in Sy. No. 265/4-5 of Chowannur Village in Kunnamkulam Taluk, Thrissur District, by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2008’). However, the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner, therefore, filed Ext.P3 application in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, ``` WPC No.9197/2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2008’) before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The application has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional officer vide Ext.P4 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that, since the subject land continues to be paddy land, the LLMC has recommended not to remove the land from the Data Bank. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 5. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 contending, _inter alia,_ that the same is vitiated by non-application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act, 2008 and the binding precedents of this Court. It is also contended that the Revenue Divisional Officer should have called for a report from the KSRSEC before disposing of the Form 5 application to ascertain the exact nature of the land as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. ``` WPC No.9197/2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` 6. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wetland is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. Rule 4 (4E) of the Rules, 2008 provides that, on receipt of the application in Form 5, the RDO shall call for a report from the Agricultural Officer in the case of paddy land and that of the Village Officer in the case of wetland. Rule 4 (4F) provides that, on receipt of the report as above, the RDO shall, if deems necessary, verify the contents of the Data Bank by direct inspection or with the help of satellite images prepared by Central/State Scientific Technological institutions and pass appropriate orders on the application. On a perusal of Ext.P4, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date coming into force of the Act, 2008 the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. ``` WPC No.9197/2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` 7. This Court has held in **Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP** v. **State of Kerala** [2022 (7) KHC 591] that, the Revenue Divisional Officer must, while considering an application for removal of a property from the data bank consider the question whether the land was a paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. In **Muraleedharan Nair** v. **Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court 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 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 ``` WPC No.9197/2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` sustenance of wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. In **Aparna Sasi Menon** v. **Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court 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. In spite of the categorical declarations by this Court in the decisions cited above, the petitioner’s application has been rejected, solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer who recommended not to remove the land from the data bank. None of the parameters for consideration of a Form 5 application has been taken into account while passing the impugned order. Accordingly I find that Ext.P4 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 2[nd] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P3 application in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision after ``` WPC No.9197/2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` considering the KSRSEC report to be obtained at the expense of the petitioner, and other relevant factors mentioned in Rule 4(4F), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report from the KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply before the Agricultural Officer concerned for KSRSEC report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** al/-.07.03.2024. ``` WPC No.9197/2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## A PPENDIX OF WP(C) 9197/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1413/1/2019 DATED 19/09/2023 OF S.R.O. KUNNAMKULAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 7.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE CHOWANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.08.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1872/2023 DATED 16.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE STATUS OF THE LAND