Saritha K. v. District Collector, Thrissur & Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 23RD MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 4251 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SARITHA K., AGED 42 YEARS W/O. PRAMOD, KARIPATHAYIL HOUSE, P.O. DESAMANGALAM, THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 679 532. ``` ``` BY ADV P.JAYARAM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, PIN – 678 001.` - `2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 003.` ``` 3THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CONVENOR OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KILLANNUR VILLAGE, P.O MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 581. ``` ``` 4STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 4251 OF 2024 ``` 2 ## JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1 whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of 0.0329 Hectares of land in Sy. No.736/P of Killanur Village, Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wet land as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2008’). However, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank as paddy land. The petitioner filed an application in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and ``` WP(C) NO. 4251 OF 2024 ``` 3 Wetland Rules, 2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P1 stating that, as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the land does not have any trees and is found to be barren and the LLMC has recommended not to exclude the land from Data Bank. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 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. 4. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wet land is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. On a perusal of Ext.P1, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of ``` WP(C) NO. 4251 OF 2024 ``` 4 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 to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. 5. This Court has held in the decision 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. 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 4251 OF 2024 ``` 5 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 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 4251 OF 2024 ``` 6 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. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P1 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 2[nd ] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Form No.5 application in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after obtaining KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report of 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 petitioner shall produced a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 2[nd] `WP(C) NO. 4251 OF 2024` 7 respondent. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SRJ `WP(C) NO. 4251 OF 2024` 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4251/2024`** ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER D1-EC-2539/2021 DATED 24/05/2022 ISSUED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. ``` ``` Exhibit P2 ``` ``` RUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2266 OF 2017, SRO THRISSUR. ``` ``` Exhibit P3 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 15/11/2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KILLANNUR. ``` ``` Exhibit P4 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. ```