Sidhik M v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad, Agricultural Officer for Mathur Panchayath, and Village Officer, Mathur-II Village

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 39589 OF 2023` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` SIDHIK M AGED 55 YEARS S/O. MOIDHEENKUTTY, ALAYAMPARAMBU HOUSE, THACHANGAD P.O, MATHUR-II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678571 BY ADVS. JACOB SEBASTIAN WINSTON K.V ANU JACOB ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD HEAD POST OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678001 2THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE MATHUR PANCHAYATH AGRICULTURE OFFICE, MATHUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678571 3THE VILLAGE OFFICER MATHUR-II VILLAGE, MATHUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678571 ``` ``` BY SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SR.GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.39589 of 2023 ``` 2 ## P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ## ------------------------------------ ## W.P.(C) No.39589 of 2023 ------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd ] day of February, 2024 ## JUDGMENT ## The above Writ Petition is filed with the following ## prayers: “i) Quash Ext.P3 issuing a writ in the nature of ceritiorari. ii) Direct the first respondent to delete 0.0202 hectors of land comprised in Re-Survey Block No. 14, Re-Survey No.612/23, Old Survey No. 182/2A of Mathur-II Village in Alathur Taluk and Palakkad District from the data bank for the area; iii) Direct the first respondent to consider and pass fresh orders on the application for correction of the mistake in the data bank submitted by the petitioner adhering to the relevant statutory provisions and government orders. iv) Declare that 0.0202 hectors of land comprised in Re-Survey Block No.14, Re-Survey No.612/23, Old Survey No. 182/2A of Mathur-II Village in Alathur ``` WP(C) NO.39589 of 2023 ``` 3 Taluk and Palakkad District is not a land to be included in the data bank for the area; V. To dispense with the production of the English translation of Exhibits which are in vernacular language; and VI. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court COURT deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. **==> picture [37 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of a house plot in Palakkad District, is the submission. According to the petitioner, though the property is a pucca garden land, it is wrongly included in the Data Bank and also wrongly categorized as nilam in the revenue records. Hence, he cannot use the land for other purposes, is the submission. Therefore, petitioner submitted an application before the 1[st] respondent, for deleting entry of the property from the data bank but the application is rejected as per Ext.P3. Aggrieved by ``` WP(C) NO.39589 of 2023 ``` 4 the same, this writ petition is filed. 3 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 is not a speaking order. Except relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the contention of the petitioner is not adverted while passing Ext.P3 order. In Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court observed that, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that Local Level Monitoring Commitee has decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank. 5. 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 the Data Bank will adversely ``` WP(C) NO.39589 of 2023 ``` 5 affect paddy cultivation in the land in question and 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. 6. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (5) KLT 432], this Court observed that the predominant factor for consideration while considering Form - 5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from the Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible or feasible. 7. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is passed in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not applied his mind and simply accepted the report. It is also submitted that, the KSREC report is ``` WP(C) NO.39589 of 2023 ``` 6 not properly considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The contention of the petitioner is that the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 is not ascertained properly as per scientific process. 8. After going through the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 1[st] respondent while passing the order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) Ext.P3 order is set aside. b) The 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` WP(C) NO.39589 of 2023 ``` 7 c) The petitioner is free to submit an application before the appropriate authority for getting the KSREC report within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and if such an application is filed, the authority concerned will do the needful to obtain the same, in accordance with law. If KSREC report is available, the same will be considered by the 1[st] respondent. d) If an application for KSREC report is submitted and the same is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to pass orders in Form - 5 application only within three months from the date of receipt of the report from the KSREC. e) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. Sd/- smv P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE ``` WP(C) NO.39589 of 2023 ``` 8 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39589/2023` ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit-P1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 14.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. ``` - `Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION` - `CERTIFICATE ALONG WITH SKETCH DATED 03.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PLOT ALONG WITH THE ADJOINING PLOTS.` - `Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2023 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.`