Shajumon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Thrikkur; Village Officer, Kallur

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO.32349 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SHAJUMON, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.DAMODARAN, AYYANJIRA HOUSE, KALLUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680317 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR P.K.MINIMOLE BAPPU GALIB SALAM MUHAMMED ASHIQUE G.MOTILAL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680125`** - **`2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, THRIKKUR REP.BY ITS CONVENOR- THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIKKUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680306`** - **`3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLUR VILLAGE AMBALLUR, KALLUR - KALLAYI RD, KALLUR, KERALA, PIN - 680317`** - **`BY SR.GP.SRI.E.G.GORDEN`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.32349 of 2022 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the 1[st] respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer [RDO]. ``` ``` 2. Petitioner is the owner in possession of 48.56 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.106/PT-25 of Kallur Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District. ``` ``` 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for brevity, ‘the Act, 2008’). However, the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The ``` W.P.(C) No.32349 of 2022 3 ``` petitioner filed an application in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 [for brevity, ‘the Rules, 2008’] before the RDO to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the RDO vide Ext.P6 order on the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer that the Local Level Monitoring Committee [LLMC] has inspected the subject land and has found that the subject land as well as the adjoining lands have plantain cultivation and conversion of the subject land will affect the cultivation in the neibouring paddy fields and the same may lead to conversion of the adjacent lands also and therefore, the same need not be removed from the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition ``` 4 W.P.(C) No.32349 of 2022 ``` challenging Ext.P6 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. It is also contended that the RDO should have called for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre [for short, ‘the KSRSEC’] before disposing of the Form 5 application to ascertain the exact nature of the land as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. ``` ``` 5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wetland is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. Rule 4(4E) of the Rules, 2008 provides that, on receipt of the ``` W.P.(C) No.32349 of 2022 5 ``` application in Form 5, the RDO shall call for a report from the Agricultural Officer in the case of paddy land and that of the Village Officer in the case of wetland. Rule 4(4F) provides that, on receipt of the report as above, the RDO shall, if deems necessary, verify the contents of the Data Bank by direct inspection or with the help of satellite images prepared by Central/State Scientific Technological Institutions and pass appropriate orders on the application. On a perusal of Ext.P6, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, the RDO has refused to remove the property from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 6. This Court has held in the decision in ``` W.P.(C) No.32349 of 2022 6 ``` 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 as on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. In Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.32349 of 2022 7 ``` 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 determination 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 Court in the decisions cited above, the ``` W.P.(C) No.32349 of 2022 8 ``` petitioner’s application has been rejected, relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who recommended not to remove the land from the Data Bank. None of the parameters for consideration of a Form 5 application has been taken into account while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P6 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent, the RDO, to reconsider the application in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after considering the KSRSEC report to be obtained at the expense of the petitioner and other relevant factors mentioned in Rule 4(4F), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report of the KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply ``` W.P.(C) No.32349 of 2022 9 ``` 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 produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 1[st] respondent for due compliance. ``` ``` The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` ``` sp/21/03/2024 ``` W.P.(C) No.32349 of 2022 10 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.585/08 DATED 25/01/2008 OF SRO NELLAYI ``` ``` Exhibit P2 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR DATED 10/08/022 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF LAND TAX FOR 2 PIECES OF LAND INCLUDING THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT. P1 DEED COMPRISED IN SY. NO. 106/PT-25 ``` ``` Exhibit P3 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER KALLUR ``` ``` Exhibit P4 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. B5-627/202 DATED 10/01/2022 ``` ``` Exhibit P5 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 17/07/2021 WITH MAHAZAR ``` ``` Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B5-627/2022 DATED 15/07/2022 ```