SHEELASIVADASAN v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF PADIYUR GRAMAPANCHAYATH, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, PADIYUR, VILLAGE OFFICER, PADIYUR

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO.4569 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SHEELASIVADASAN, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.SIVADASAN, CHEMBAKASSERRAY HOUSE, KONATHUKUNNU P.O., THEKKUMKARA, KONATHUKUNNU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680123 BY ADV.GEORGE SEBASTIAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION RD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125`** - **`2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF PADIYUR GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, PADIYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680008`** - **`3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, PADAM ROAD, PADIYUR.P.O., THRISUR, PIN - 680688`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PADIYUR, THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ELLANGALLUR - MATHILAKAM RD, POOMANGALAM, PADIYUR.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680688`** ## **`BY SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.4569 of 2024 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the 1[st] respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer [RDO] solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. ``` ``` 2. Petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 2.02 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.647/1-3 of Padiyoor Village in Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District. ``` ``` 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wet land as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for brevity, ‘the Act, 2008’) However, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 ``` W.P.(C) No.4569 of 2024 3 ``` application in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the 1[st] respondent/RDO to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the RDO vide Ext.P3 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the land was inspected by the LLMC and no coconut trees or other trees were found in the land. Since the petitioner asserted that several years ago a cinema talkies was functioning in the subject land, it was decided to request report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, Thiruvananthapuram [for brevity, ‘the KSRSEC’]. Therefore, it has been decided to retain the land in the Data Bank. ``` ``` 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 contending,inter alia, that ``` W.P.(C) No.4569 of 2024 4 ``` 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 KSRSEC and considered the same to ascertain the status of the land as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. No report was called for from the KSRSEC and solely on the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer and the recommendation of the LLMC, the 1[st] respondent/RDO has decided to reject the application. ``` ``` 5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. ``` **`6. The relevant consideration for inclusion of`** **`a property as paddy land or wet land is as to the`** W.P.(C) No.4569 of 2024 5 ``` nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. On a perusal of Ext.P3, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 7. This Court has held in the decision in 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 on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable ``` W.P.(C) No.4569 of 2024 6 ``` for paddy cultivation or not. 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. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue ``` W.P.(C) No.4569 of 2024 7 ``` Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has held that the predominant factor for consideration 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 petitioner's application has been rejected, solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer who recommended not to remove the land from the data bank. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P3 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, to reconsider Ext.P2 application in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after obtaining KSRSEC ``` W.P.(C) No.4569 of 2024 8 ``` report at the expense of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report of the KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply 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 writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` ``` sp/06/02/2024 ``` W.P.(C) No.4569 of 2024 9 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THELAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.04.2022 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ``` - **`EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.04.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1STRESPONDENT`** - **`EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2023 BEARING FILE NUMBER 2060/2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`** ``` EXHIBIT P4 ``` - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.RDOIJK/787/2023-B5 DATED 11.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`** ``` EXHIBIT P5 ``` - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE SCAN REPORT DATED 28.06.2023 ISSUED FROM GEM HOSPITAL THRISSUR IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER`** ``` EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED FROM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL KOTTAYAM IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ```