High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-10-05Writ petition allowed

Shaju C. Chacko & Leena Ignatious v. District Collector, Thrissur; Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur; Tahsildar, Thrissur Taluk; Village Officer, Puthur; Agriculture Officer, Puthur; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.32616 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Judgment Date: 2023-10-05
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P3 is quashed; the 2nd respondent (RDO) is directed to reconsider the Form-5 application on the petitioners' land and issue a fresh order after considering the KSREC report and other factors under Rule 4(4f); the new order must be issued within three months.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shaju C. Chacko
Leena Ignatious

Respondents

District Collector, Thrissur
Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur Revenue Divisional Office
Tahsildar, Thrissur Taluk
Village Officer, Puthur Village Office
Agriculture Officer, Puthur
Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shakthi Prakash
• Muhasin K.M.
• Farhana K.H.
• Amjath A.D.

Counsels for Respondents

• Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil
• Amminikutty K

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners Shaju C. Chacko and Leena Ignatious challenge Ext.P3, the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 13.06.2022 order, which rejected Form-5 and kept their land in the data bank. They contend the 21.65 acres in Survey No. 329/0-16, Puthur Village, Thrissur, was converted to non-paddy use prior to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and that it was erroneously included in the data bank when the data bank was prepared under Section 5(4)(i) of the Act. Their Form-5 application sought removal from the data bank to allow alternative uses. The impugned order relies on an Agricultural Officer’s report dated 04.06.2022 without any independent assessment, site inspection, or reasoning, rendering it not a speaking order. The petition is supported by the KSREC report (Ext.P4) and by submissions that surrounding areas are developed and that the land’s suitability for paddy cultivation and irrigation facilities were not adequately analyzed. The court recalls decisions in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair R. v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, holding that an authority must independently assess land status and consider whether removal will affect paddy cultivation and nearby fields. The judgment quashes the order and directs fresh consideration, emphasizing independent mind under Rule 4(4f) and a comprehensive appraisal, within three months, with a speaking order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Section 5(4)(i) of the ActKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 4(4d) of the RulesRule 4(4f) of the Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Independent application of mind by administrative authorities
RDO cannot merely follow Agricultural Officer’s report or LLMC—requires independent assessment
A speaking order with reasons is required
Predominant consideration must be whether removal from data bank affects paddy cultivation and nearby fields, including irrigation facilities

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenge Ext.P3 on the ground that the RDO's decision was not a speaking order and rests solely on the Agricultural Officer's report without independent assessment. They contend their land is dry land and wrongly included in the data bank, and that Form-5 under Rule 4(4d) should be evaluated in light of KSREC's findings and the effect on paddy cultivation and irrigation facilities; relying on Arthasasthra Ventures, Muraleedharan Nair, and Aparna Sasi Menon to argue that the authority must assess whether removal will affect paddy cultivation and nearby fields; the KSREC report supports exclusion; the Court should quash Ext.P3 and order fresh consideration with independent mind and proper application of Rule 4(4f).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the RDO's order is based on the Agricultural Officer's report and adheres to Rule 4(4d)/(4f); Form-5 requires evaluation with relevant reports, and the KSREC report is to be considered; the impugned order does not lack an independent mind per se, and the petitioner's land remains under data bank; they rely on established guidelines and prior orders to justify the decision.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	Held that the RDO cannot merely follow an Agricultural Officer's report or LLMC without independent assessment; used as authority for independent assessment.
Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KHC 524	Positive	Affirmed the need for independent consideration when Form 5 is processed; cited for independent mind requirement.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (6) KHC 83	Positive	Stated that predominant consideration is whether land is suitable for paddy cultivation including irrigation facilities; cited to guide evaluation under Form-5.
Common Judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No. 22495 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No. 8409 of 2017	30.03.2022	Positive	Exhibit P14 references a common judgment reinforcing principles of independent application of mind and consideration of paddy cultivation factors.

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 Shaju C. Chacko & Leena Ignatious v. District Collector, Thrissur; Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur; Tahsildar, Thrissur Taluk; Village Officer, Puthur; Agriculture Officer, Puthur; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS`** ## **`THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 13TH ASWINA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 32616 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1SHAJU C. CHACKO AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, KANMANAM, THEKKUMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676551. 2LEENA IGNATIOUS AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. SHAJU C. CHACKO, CHALAKKAL HOUSE, KANMANAM, THEKKUMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676551. BY ADVS. SHAKTHI PRAKASH MUHASIN K.M. FARHANA K.H. AMJATHA D.A. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680003.` - `2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680003.` - `3 THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE, TOWN HALL, W PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAV, THRISSUR, PIN – 680020.` - `4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUTHUR VILLAGE OFFICE, PUTHUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680014` - `5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, PUTHUR, KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680014` - `6 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` ADV VISHNU S CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL -SC, ADV AMMINIKUTTY K -SR GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 05.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.32616 of 2023 2 **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ==================== W.P.(C) No.32616 of 2023 ====================** _Dated this the 05[th ] day of October, 2023_ ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners are the owners of 21.65 Ares of property in Survey No.329/0-16 of Puthur Village in Thrissur Taluk of Thrissur District. Challenge is against Ext.P3 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, 13.06.2022, whereby petitioner’s request to remove their land from the data bank stands rejected. 2. Petitioners allege that their land was converted prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, the Act) and that it is a 'dry land'. However, when the data bank was prepared under Section 5(4)(i) of the Act, their land was wrongly included in it. Since petitioners require the land for other purposes, they submitted Form-5 application, invoking Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, the Rules). W.P.(C) No.32616 of 2023 3 3. By the impugned order, petitioners’ application was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer based on the report of the Agricultural Officer dated 04.06.2022. Petitioners allege that the application was rejected without even a site inspection or any application of mind and is hence not a speaking order. 4. I have heard Sri. Shakthi Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil, learned Standing Counsel and Smt.K. Amminikutty, learned Senior Government Pleader and have also perused Ext.P3 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. Petitioner’s application in Form 5 of the Rules was rejected relying on the Agricultural Officer’s report dated 04.06.2022. The said report stated that petitioners land need not be excluded from the data bank. Petitioners rely upon the KSREC report produced as Ext.P4 and asserts that the surrounding areas are well-developed with buildings on them and also that the impugned order has not referred to the suitability for cultivation as a paddy land. 6. 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 had observed that the RDO cannot merely follow the report of W.P.(C) No.32616 of 2023 4 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. Similarly, in the decision in **Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (6) KHC 83] it has been observed that when the competent authority considers a Form-5 application, the predominant consideration should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from data bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible including the existence of irrigation facilities. 7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the aforementioned specific aspects have not been adverted to, and instead, the application has been rejected solely on the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is also no finding that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation and whether there is any paddy land suitable for cultivation in the nearby areas. 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. 8. In the above circumstances, Ext.P3 is quashed and the W.P.(C) No.32616 of 2023 5 2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioners and issue orders afresh after considering the report of KSREC and other relevant factors stipulated in Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The order, as directed above, shall be issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. **Sd/-** **BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE** Skk//05.10.2023 W.P.(C) No.32616 of 2023 6 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32616/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.07.2021 EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 27.08.2021 EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B7- 14014/2021 DATED 13.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S FORM 5 APPLICATION EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR KSREC DATED 27.02.2023 EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.09.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY ``` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:-NIL ``` W.P.(C) No.32616 of 2023 7 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.32614 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** - `EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.05.2015` - `EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND DEVELOPMENT, DATED 06.12.2016` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 08.09.2016` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED REPORT (KBCPD 34/2016) OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CHEPPAD` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT - P4 REPORT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IN RESPONSE TO THE EXHIBIT - P2 STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.02.2017` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 8409 OF 2017DATED 14.03.2017` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDERIN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 8409 OF 2017 DATED 22.06.2017` - `EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.09.2020` - `EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE DATED 14.07.2021` - `EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED` W.P.(C) No.32616 of 2023 8 - `14.07.2021 FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF G.O [RT] NO. 1168/2021/REV DATED 25.02.2021` - `EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT RENDERED IN W.P.(C) NO. 22495 OF 2021 AND W.P.(C) NO. 8409 OF 2017 DATED 30.03.2022` - `EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO` - `4THRESPONDENT TITLED AS A1-5126/22` - `EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO THE EXHIBIT - P15 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT - P9 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.03.2023` - `EXHIBIT P18 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IN QUESTION` - `EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.12.2015` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:-NIL ``` W.P.(C) No.32616 of 2023 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.30906/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.760/1/2022 DATED 20.07.2022. ``` - `EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF RECENT LAND TAX DATED 11.04.2023.` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 24.06.2023.` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.744/2023` ``` RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:-NIL ```