Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of as above.

Shaji P.P v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Ollukkara, Mannuthy; Village Officer, Nettisseri Village Office; Thrissur Corporation

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.5825 of 2023
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Viju Abraham, J.
Judgment Date
2023-11-02
Court Decision / Holding
Ext.P7 is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the Form-5 application by obtaining a KSREC Report (upon payment of the prescribed fee) and passing a fresh order within three months from receipt of KSREC Report, after evaluating the report and the factors under Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner may file argument notes with relevant judgments, and the 1st respondent shall consider the findings of the cited judgments and the petitioner’s contentions before passing final orders. Until a decision is rendered, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of as above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shaji P.P.

Respondents

  • Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Ollukkara, Mannuthy; Village Officer, Nettisseri Village Office, Nettisseri; Thrissur Corporation, represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • T.C. Suresh Menon
  • • B. Deepak

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Santhosh P. Poduval

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shaji P.P., the petitioner, challenged Ext.P7, a Government order rejecting his Form-5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, aimed at removing his land from the Data Bank. He owns about 0.0445 hectares (roughly 11 cents) in Nettisseri Village within Thrissur Corporation limits, and had earlier built a residential structure that was deemed unauthorised, followed by a demolition order and a tax assessment that prompted a Form-5 application. The 1st respondent rejected his Form-5 on the basis of the LLMC’s data-bank decision, without independent assessment, leading to this writ petition. The court cites a lineage of decisions governing the Data Bank: Salim C.K. (2017) clarifying that the Data Bank covers cultivable paddy land and wetlands; Lalu P.S. (2020) fixing the data-bank’s temporal scope as of 24.12.2008; Joy (2021) emphasizing land character as of 12.08.2008; Arthasasthra Ventures (2022) requiring consideration of paddy/wetland status and scientific data when needed; Muraleedharan Nair (2023) endorsing independent assessment for removal; Aparna Sasi Menon (2023) stressing feasibility of paddy cultivation. After noting these principles, the Court holds Ext.P7 unsustainable for lack of independent evaluation and directs the 1st respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application within a structured process, including KSREC reporting under Rule 4(4f) of the 2008 Rules, with a fresh order within three months and staying further Ext.P4 proceedings in the meanwhile.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the Ext.P7 order is vitiated for its sole reliance on the LLMC’s data-bank decision without independent scrutiny by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). Citing Salim C.K. v. State of Kerala and Others (2017) 1 KHC 394, Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala (2020) 5 KHC 490, Joy v. RDO (2021) 1 KLT 433, Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022) 4 KLT OnLine 1222, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO (2023) 4 KLT 270, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO (2023) 5 KLT 432, the Form-5 assessment must focus on whether the land was cultivable paddy land or wetland at the time the Act came into force and whether it remains fit for paddy cultivation, supported by KSREC data if needed. The petitioner urges removal from the Data Bank only after a comprehensive KSREC report and adherence to Rule 4(4f) and related guidance, with a reasoned determination addressing the land’s current and potential agricultural status and environmental impact, rather than a mechanical adherence to LLMC’s prior decision.

Contentions of Respondents

The Respondents argue that the Data Bank was established to preserve paddy land and wetlands in line with the Act and Rules, and that the LLMC’s data-bank decision should guide the current status of the land. They emphasize the need to maintain the integrity of the data bank and to respect prior LLMC determinations; the RDO’s role is to ensure compliance with the statutory framework and to obtain scientific inputs (KSREC) in Form-5 reconsiderations where appropriate. They contend that the data-bank categorization and LLMC decisions must be given primacy unless demonstrated new or compelling evidence showing a change in land use or suitability for paddy cultivation, in which case KSREC data and Rule 4(4f) permit re-evaluation. The respondents assert that Ext.P7 results from a lawful, policy-driven process and should stand unless independent re-assessment clearly demonstrates adverse impacts or misclassification, which did not occur in the present case.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others2017 (1) KHC 394PositiveCited for defining the Data Bank content as cultivable paddy land and wetlands within LLMC jurisdiction.
Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala2020 (5) KHC 490PositiveCited to establish that the Data Bank relates to cultivable paddy land existing as on 24.12.2008.
Joy v. Revenue Division Officer/Sub Collector2021 (1) KLT 433PositiveCited for principle that land character as of 12.08.2008 governs inclusion/exclusion from Data Bank.
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222PositiveCited to emphasize need for considering paddy/wetland status at Act’s commencement and potential use of scientific data.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer2023 (4) KLT 270PositiveCited to require independent assessment by RDO when removing land from Data Bank.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer2023 (5) KLT 432PositiveCited for the predominance of paddy cultivation feasibility in Form-5 considerations.

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 Shaji P.P v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Ollukkara, Mannuthy; Village Officer, Nettisseri Village Office; Thrissur Corporation and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**W.P.(C) No.5825 of 2023 1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **THURSDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 5825 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** SHAJI P.P, AGED 45 YEARS S/O PAPPACHAN,RESIDING AT PUNNATHANATHU HOUSE,KURICHIKKARA P.O.,MATTAMPURAM, THRISSUR-, PIN - 680028 BY ADVS. T.C.SURESH MENON B.DEEPAK ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, 1ST FLOOR,CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR-, PIN - 680003 2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN,OLLUKKARA, MANNUTHY P.O.,THRISSUR-, PIN - 680651 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,NETTISSERI VILLAGE OFFICE,NETTISSERI P.O., THRISSUR-, PIN - 680657 4 THRISSUR CORPORATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-, PIN - 680001 BY ADV SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP - RIYAL DEVASSY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **W.P.(C) No.5825 of 2023 2** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** ----------------------- **W.P.(C) No.5825 of 2023** --------------------------------- **Dated this the 2[nd] day of of November, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P7 order, whereby the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the 1[st] respondent. 2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0445 hectares (approximately 11 cents) of land in R.S.No.5/23 (Old Sy.No.604/IP) of Nettisseri Village in Thrissur Taluk within the jurisdiction of the Thrissur Corporation limits. 3. Petitioner submits that the land is pucca dry land and in the very adjacent properties are also lying in the same. The 4[th] respondent Corporation has granted Exts.P1 and P2 building permits. Petitioner constructed a small residential house in the 5 cents of the above said property and the Corporation declared the building as unauthorised construction and issued proceedings ## **W.P.(C) No.5825 of 2023 3** granting UA number and fixing a huge rate of tax. Subsequently, a demolition order was issued as per Ext.P4. Thereupon, petitioner submitted an application for regularisation of the construction wherein the 4[th] respondent informed the petitioner that the property is now lying as Nilam and therefore, petitioner has to get necessary orders for removing the same from the data bank. Thereupon, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application under Form 5. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment the application was considered and rejected by Ext.P7. Petitioner would submit that a perusal of Ext.P7 would reveal that the application has been rejected solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer and there is no independent consideration by the 1[st] respondent. 4. This Court in _**Salim C.K. and Another v.**_ _**State of Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394]**_ has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain ## **W.P.(C) No.5825 of 2023 4** details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in _**Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala[2020 (5) KHC 490]**_ this Court has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In _**Joy v. Revenue Division Officer/Sub Collector[2021 (1) KLT 433]**_ it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in _**Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of**_ _**Kerala[2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222]**_ has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data ## **W.P.(C) No.5825 of 2023 5** including satellite photographs obtained from KSREC. 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 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. Further, this Court in _**Aparna**_ _**Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (5)**_ _**KLT 432]**_ has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is ## **W.P.(C) No.5825 of 2023 6** sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. 5. In spite of these categorical declaration by this Court in a catena of judgment as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected solely relying on the decision of the LLMC not to remove the paddy land from the data bank. 6. In view of the above, Ext.P7 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 1[st] respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner submits an application to the Agricultural Officer concerned seeking to obtain KSREC Report paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass order afresh in the Form-5 application within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the KSREC Report and take a final decision in the matter after considering the report as well as the relevant factors stipulated in Rule 4 (4f) of the **W.P.(C) No.5825 of 2023 7** Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Petitioner will be free to file argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him to substantiate his contentions and the 1[st] respondent RDO while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the findings by this Court in the judgments cited (supra) and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by him and pass final orders in the matters as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till a decision is taken as directed above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** pm ## **W.P.(C) No.5825 of 2023 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5825/2023** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT GRANTED TO THE NEARBY PLOT OWNER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 17.3.32015. - Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT GRANTED TO THE NEARBY PLOT OWNER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 5.10.2015. - Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.OLK2/1064/ 2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 15.5.2020. - Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMOLITION ORDER NO.OLK3/ BA/86/17-18 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 1.10.2020. - Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.5 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 12.7.2021. - Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.27245/2021 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONORABLE COURT, DATED 1.12.2021. - Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D8-10929/2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 24.1.2023. - Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH DEPICT THE FACTUAL SITUATION, DATED -NIL-