High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-06Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P7 set aside; re...

Shibu Thomas v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; Agricultural Field Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thripunithura; Village Officer, Nadamavillage, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-03-06
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. Ext.P7 is set aside. The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P6 (Form 5) and decide on the basis of Ext.P9 (KSRSEC report), this Court’s observations, binding precedents, and Rule 4(4F), within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P7 set aside; remand to reconsider Form 5 within two months

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shibu Thomas

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, RDO Office, Fort Kochi, Ernakulam District
Agricultural Field Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thripunithura, Ernakulam District
Village Officer, Nadamavillage, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. K. Soyuz
• E. V. Babychan

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT. Devishree

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shibu Thomas approaches this Court challenging Ext.P7, the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order rejecting Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, which aimed to remove the land from the Data Bank. The petitioner owns about 4.36 acres of land in Nadama Village, Ernakulam District. He contends the land does not fall within the definitions of paddy land or wetland under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and was wrongly included in the Data Bank. Ext.P9, the KSRSEC report, is said to indicate the land as fallow land with exposed soil; the land is bounded by roads and surrounding converts, having been altered prior to 2008. The RDO’s reliance on the Agricultural Officer’s LLMC report—without independent assessment of the land’s status on the Act’s date—raises issues of non-application of mind. The petitioner invokes binding precedents—Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022), Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO (2023), Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO (2023), Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2014), and Mather Nagar Residents Association v. Dist. Collector (2020)—to urge independent evaluation, focusing on land’s paddy cultivation feasibility. The Court sets aside Ext.P7 and directs reconsideration of Form 5 by the RDO, grounded on Ext.P9, the Court’s observations, binding precedents, and Rule 4(4F], within two months, disposing of the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

RDO must independently assess land status as on the date of coming into force of Act 2008; cannot rely solely on LLMC report
Predominant factor for determination is whether land is suitable for paddy cultivation
Fallow land is not wetland or paddy land under Act 2008
Land suitable for paddy but uncultivated and surrounded by reclaimed lands may fall outside the definition of paddy land
Consideration of KSRSEC report and statutory definitions in decisions is required

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Shibu Thomas contends that Ext.P7 is vitiated by non-application of mind and contravenes the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules. He asserts the LLMC report relied upon by the Agricultural Officer is not an independent appraisal of the land’s status on the Act’s date and ignores Ext.P9 (KSRSEC) indicating fallow land. Form 5 was filed to exclude the land from the Data Bank; the decision to retain it rests on a flawed assessment. The petitioner relies on Arthasasthra Ventures (2022), Muraleedharan Nair (2023), Aparna Sasi Menon (2023), Adani Infrastructures (2014), and Mather Nagar (2020), which mandate independent evaluation of land status, feasibility for paddy cultivation, and the primacy of the Act’s definitions. The Court should set aside Ext.P7 and remand for reconsideration of Form 5, guided by Ext.P9, binding precedents, and Rule 4(4F), within two months.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend Ext.P7, arguing that the order follows due process and statutory requirements under the Act and Rules. They contend the LLMC report has bearing on whether land is paddy land; Form 5 requires a report from the Agricultural Officer and, if needed, verification using satellite data. They rely on the LLMC’s assessment and the KSRSEC data, asserting that the data bank status should reflect the land’s designation under law. The respondents submit that the status of land as of the Act’s date must be ascertained and that the KSRSEC report supports the entry, thus Merely quashing Ext.P7 without a full re-evaluation would undermine statutory objectives. They urge the court to maintain the order and to permit a proper re-evaluation under Rule 4(4F) while respecting precedent.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	Held that the RDO must independently assess land status on the date of Act and determine paddy land status and suitability; supports independent evaluation of Form 5 cases.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Held that mere reliance on LLMC decision is insufficient; RDO must independently assess and conclude whether removal from Data Bank adversely affects paddy cultivation or wetlands.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (6) KHC 83	Positive	Held that predominant factor is feasibility of paddy cultivation when considering Form-5 applications.
Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others v. State of Kerala & Others	2014 (1) KHC 685	Positive	Held that uncultivated land suitable for paddy but included as paddy land can be outside the definition under certain conditions.
Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam	2020 (2) KLT 192	Positive	Held that fallow land is not wetland or paddy land under Act 2008, reinforcing need to assess land status carefully.

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 Shibu Thomas v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; Agricultural Field Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thripunithura; Village Officer, Nadamavillage, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **SHIBU THOMAS, AGED 52 YEARS S/O P.J. THOMAS VADAKKUMTHALA POOVELIL HOUSE, ARANGATH CROSS ROAD. PULLEPADY , ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682018 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY P.J. THOMAS, AGED 82 YEARS , S/O JOSEPH VADAKKUMTHALA POOVELIL HOUSE, ARANGATH CROSS ROAD. PULLEPADY ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682018** **BY ADVS. P.K.SOYUZ E.V.BABYCHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI P.O ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001 2 AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN MINI CIVIL STATION, THRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682301 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER NADAMAVILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 682301 R BY GP SMT.DEVISHREE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 2 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P7 whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 4.36 Ares of land (10.77 cents) comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.52 and 54 (Old Sy.Nos. 52/1 and 52/3) of Block No.28 of Nadama Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District. 3. According to the petitioner, the said 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 (hereinafter **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 3 :** referred to as 'the Act, 2008' for short). However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2008' for short) as paddy land. The petitioner states that as per Ext.P9 KSRSEC report, the land is indicated as fallow land with exposed soil and boundary walls in the side of the plot in 2008 data. The petitioner states that the land is surrounded by road on one side and converted land on other three sides and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. It was converted prior to 2008. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P6 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Rules, 2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 4 :** the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P7 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that on inspection by LLMC, the subject land was found to be paddy land and the LLMC has recommended not to remove the land from the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner impugns Ext.P7 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 Ext.P9 KSRSEC report was ignored and not considered. 5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wet land 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, **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 5 :** 2008 provides that, on receipt of the 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.P7, 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 upon the report of the Agricultural Officer to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 6 :** 6. This Court has held 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 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 **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 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. 7. Further, this Court in **Aparna Sasi Menon** v. **Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (6) KHC 83] 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. **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 8 :** 8. In **Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others** [2014 (1) KHC 685], this Court has held that if the land suitable for paddy cultivation is uncultivated and left fallow and if the said land is included as paddy land in the village records and if the property is locked on all four sides with lands which were reclaimed before the coming into force of the Act, 2008, such land cannot be said as suitable for cultivation and may come outside the definition of paddy land. 9. In **Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others** [2020 (2) KLT 192], a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “22. Going by the definition of wetland, **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 9 :** we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSRSEC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSRSEC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets season or logged during rainy otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008.” **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 10 :** 10. 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. None of the parameters for consideration of a Form 5 application has been taken into account while passing the impugned order. I find that there is total non application of mind on the part of the RDO in issuing Ext.P7. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P7, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P6 application in Form 5 and take a decision in the matter on the basis of Ext.P9 KSRSEC report, the observation of this Court, the binding precedents and other relevant factors **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 11 :** mentioned in Rule 4(4F), within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along with the copy of the judgment before the RDO. The writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB ## **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 12 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO. DDIS - S7 - 17552/15, S7 - 2714/16 DATED 21.10.2021 OF THE TAHSILDAR (LR) KANAYANNOOR** |**Exhibit P 2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED**| |---|---| ||**12.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT**| ||**VILLAGE OFFICER**| |**Exhibit P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DRAFT**| ||**DATA BANK**| |**Exhibit P 4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 2 ND**| ||**RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE**| ||**DIRECTOR, KSREC DATED 01.02.2019**| |**Exhibit P5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**| ||**NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF THRIPUNITHURA**| ||**MUNICIPALITY DATED 10.02.2021**| |**Exhibit P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED**| ||**22.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**| ||**BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM NO. 5**| |**Exhibit P7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. NO.**| ||**K11/14023/2022 DATED 12.04.2023 THE 1 ST**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**Exhibit P8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. K3-**| ||**12994/2019 DATED 11.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER**| |**Exhibit P9**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. A-**| ||**172/2015/KSREC/004476/004477/19 OF THE**| ||**KSREC DATED NIL**| |**Exhibit P 10**|**A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY**| ||**THE PETITIONER**| **WP(C) NO. 6627 OF 2024 : 13 :** **Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT TO MR. T JAMES & ANNIE JAMES DATED 22.09.2018**