Sasidharan N v. State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram; District Collector, Kollam; Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Oachira Grama Panchayath represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Oachira

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 6630 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONER(S):`** ## **`SASIDHARAN N`** ``` AGED 66 YEARS ``` ``` KOTTAYKKATTU VEEDU(ASHA BHAVANAM) MEMANA, OACHIRA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690526 ``` ``` BY ADV UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT(S):`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013`** - **`3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR) REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013`** - **`4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE , OACHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, OACHIRA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 690526`** ## **`BY ADV.`** - **`SMT.AMMNIKUTTY.K, SR.GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.6630 OF 2024 ``` 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.6630 of 2024 ------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th ] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order calling the records of Ext.P4 order dated 22.06.2023 of 3rd respondent and quash the same holding that the same is illegal. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order directing the 3rd respondent to allow the Ext.P3 application and remove the property from the data bank, since the same is not a paddy or wet land as per the report of KSRSEC. iii) To declare that the property of the petitioner is not a paddy or wet land as per ``` WP(C) NO.6630 OF 2024 ``` 3 Ext.P1 coupled with Ext.P5 report of KSRSEC, and Ext.P2 deed and liable to be removed from the data bank published by the 4th respondent. iv) iisue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC] 2. The petitioner is the owner of 32.14 Ares of land in Re.Sy. No.227/7 of Oachira Village in Karunagappally Taluk, is the submission. The said land is not a paddy or wet land and the same was converted 30-35 years back is the further submission. According to the petitioner, at any stretch of imagination, the property belongs to the petitioner is not a paddy land and it is not fit for paddy cultivation. It is the clear case of the petitioner that the property was naturally reclaimed as garden land and several trees were grown and the property became a pure residential plot. It is also submitted that there is no ``` WP(C) NO.6630 OF 2024 ``` 4 paddy or wet land in the vicinity of the property of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in Ext.P1 photographs, Ext.P2 deed in the year 1990 and Ext.P5 report of KSREC also shows that the plot was converted before 2008. But, without considering the same, the 3[rd] respondent issued Ext.P4 order rejecting the application under Form 5, is the grievance of the petitioner. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 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.P4 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 ``` WP(C) NO.6630 OF 2024 ``` 5 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 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. ``` WP(C) NO.6630 OF 2024 ``` 6 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 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 3[rd] 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 ``` WP(C) NO.6630 OF 2024 ``` 7 the following directions: a) Ext.P4 order is set aside. b) The 3[rd] 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 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 3[rd] respondent. If ``` WP(C) NO.6630 OF 2024 ``` 8 any report from the KSREC is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to pass final orders in Form 5 application only within three months from the date of receipt of the report from KSREC. d) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 3[rd] respondent for compliance. Sd/- nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` WP(C) NO.6630 OF 2024 ``` 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6630/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE LAND ``` ``` EXHIBIT 2TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1106/1990 OF SRO OACHIRA DATED 11.4.1990 EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 2.2.2023 EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.6.2023 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 31.10.2023 OF KSRSEC EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH PREPARED BY THE LICENSED SURVEYOR ``` ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**