Simi v. District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, Village Officer, Agriculture Officer and KSREC, Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 7801 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **SIMI AGED 55 YEARS D/O. P J DAVIS, PULLOCKARAN HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680121** **BY ADVS. AMJATHA D.A. SHAKTHI PRAKASH MUHASIN K.M. FARHANA K.H.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMMANDA ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125** - **3 THE TAHSILDAR MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, CHEMMANDA ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680121** - **5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA KRISHI BHAVAN, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680121** - **6 THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033** WP(C) NO.7801 OF 2024 2 **BY ADV.** **SMT.AMMNIKUTTY.K, SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO.7801 OF 2024 3 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.7801 of 2024 ------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: _“_ i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 order and quash the same. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application and pass orders afresh after obtaining a report from the 6[th] respondent, KSREC with regard to the nature of the property as on 2008. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 6[th] respondent to file a report before the 2[nd] and 5[th] respondent with regard to nature and lie of the petitioner’s property in 2008. iv. To dispense with the filing of WP(C) NO.7801 OF 2024 4 ## translation of vernacular documents. v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. _”[SIC]_ 2. Petitioner filed a Form 5 application before the 2[nd] respondent for removing the property from the data bank. The 2[nd] respondent after obtaining a report from the 5[th] respondent passed Ext.P3 order rejecting the petitioner’s application. According to the petitioner, her property was reclaimed much before the enactment of Act 2008. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s application was rejected without obtaining scientific report from the KSREC with respect to the nature of the petitioner’s property as on 2008. Hence it is submitted that the order rejecting Form – 5 application is illegal. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, this Writ petition is filed. WP(C) NO.7801 OF 2024 5 3. Heard the 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 affect paddy cultivation in the land in question and WP(C) NO.7801 OF 2024 6 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 not properly considered by the Revenue Divisional WP(C) NO.7801 OF 2024 7 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 2[nd] 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: i) Ext.P3 order is set aside. ii) The 2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider Form - 5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate WP(C) NO.7801 OF 2024 8 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iii) 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 2[nd] respondent. If the KSREC report is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to pass final orders in Form – 5 application only WP(C) NO.7801 OF 2024 9 within three months from the date of receipt of the KSREC report. iv) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 2[nd] respondent for compliance. Sd/- DM **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** WP(C) NO.7801 OF 2024 10 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7801/2024** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.07.2023 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.10.2023 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE