Satheesan K v Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur & Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 30422 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SATHEESAN K AGED 63 YEARS S/O SATHYABHAMA, KANDAMCHIRAKKAL HOUSE, MAYANNUR, MAYANNUR P.O., PIN – 679105 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ASOK KUMAR K.P. GENTLE C.D. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FIRST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680003 2LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KONDAZHY KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680106 ``` ``` 3THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KONDAZHY, KONDAZHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680106 4THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE SATELLITE REMOTE SENSING- ``` W.P.(C).No.30422 of 2023 -:2:- ``` & ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, 'C' BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695033 ``` ``` BY ADV K.AMMINIKUTTY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C).No.30422 of 2023 -:3:- ## **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. -------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.30422 of 2023 ---------------------------------------** _Dated this 18[th] day of September, 2023_ ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner, is the owner of 0.9601 hectare of property in Survey Nos. 505 and 506 of Mayannur Village, Talappilly Talik, Thrissur District. Challenge is against Ext.P13 order of the Sub Collector, Thrissur, whereby the petitioner’s request to remove his land from the data bank stands rejected. 2. Petitioner alleges that his land was converted prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, the Act) and it is presently a 'dry land'. However, when the data bank was prepared under Section 5(4)(i) of the Act, his land was wrongly included in it. Since, petitioner requires the land for other purposes, he submitted Form-5 application, invoking Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, the Rules). 3. By the impugned order, application was rejected by the Sub Collector. According to the petitioner, the application was rejected W.P.(C).No.30422 of 2023 -:4:- solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer without even a site inspection or any application of mind and is hence not a speaking order. 4. I have heard Sri. Asok Kumar P Kodath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Amminikutty K., the learned Senior Government Pleader and have also perused Ext.P13 order passed by the Sub Collector. 5. Petitioner’s application in Form 5 of the Rules was rejected relying on the Agricultural Officer’s report dated 20.12.2022. The said report stated that petitioner’s land is suitable for paddy cultivation, and that it need not be excluded from the data bank. Petitioner relies upon the KSREC reports produced as Exts.P11 and P12 and asserts that the surrounding areas are well-developed and submits that the impugned order has not even referred to the cultivability of petitioner's land. 6. Petitioner has produced the KSREC reports and asserted that the surrounding areas are well-developed and also that the impugned order has not referred to any of the required parameters. 7. In the decision in _**Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591]**_ and in _**Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524]**_ , this Court W.P.(C).No.30422 of 2023 -:5:- had observed that the RDO cannot merely follow the report of the Agricultural Officer or the LLMC without any independent assessment of the status of the land. This Court had also observed that while considering an application filed under Form 5, the Authority must consider whether the removal of the property from the data bank will affect paddy cultivation in the land and also whether it will affect the nearby paddy fields. 8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that, specific aspects have not been adverted to and instead, the application has been rejected without any reasoning. The 1[st] respondent is failed to consider the impact of the report of scientific data for deciding the matter. In this context, it is relevant is quashed to note that in the report of KSREC the properties are shown as fallow lad in the date of 24.01.2008. True that even a fallow land will fall withing the definition of a paddy land as per 2(xii) of the Act. However, it is for the 1[st] respondent to consider the said data and pass orders. Since the order is bereft of material particulars and is not issued on any perceivable data, it cannot be said to be a reasoned order. Evidently, there is no independent application of mind to the relevant circumstances, and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and a fresh consideration be made. W.P.(C).No.30422 of 2023 -:6:- 9. In view of the above, Ext.P13 order is quashed and 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider Form 5 application filed by the petitioner and issue fresh orders, after considering the report of KSREC and other relevant factors mentioned in rule 4(f) of the Rules. The order, as directed above, shall be issued within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS** **JUDGE** Jka/18.09.23. W.P.(C).No.30422 of 2023 -:7:- ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30422/2023`** ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS ``` - `Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 2641/2005 DATED 14.10.2005 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1398/2006 DATED 20.05.2006 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `Exhibit P- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 887/2006 DATED 29.03.2006 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 888/2006 DATED 29.03.2006 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 2491/2005 DATED 22.09.2005 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MAYANNUR.` - `Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK.` - `Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF MAYANNUR VILLAGE.` - `Exhibit P- 9 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND.` - `Exhibit P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED NIL PREFERRED TO THE 1ST` ## W.P.(C).No.30422 of 2023 ## -:8:- ``` RESPONDENT DATED NIL. Exhibit P-11TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT NO. A/172/2015/KSREC/007567/22DATED 30.11.2022ISSUEDBYTHE4TH RESPONDENT.’ Exhibit P-12TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT NO. A/172/2015/KSREC/007568/22DATED 30.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P-13TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B3/19471/2021 DATED 24.04.2023 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P- 14TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN NIYAS V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [2023(2) KLT 411] DATED 22.02.2023. Exhibit P-15TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN JAFFARKHAN VS KUNJUMARAKKAR [2012 (1) KHC 523] DATED 18.01.2012. Exhibit P-16TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.04.2014 SENT BY NATIONAL REMOTE SENSING CENTER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ```