Smt. Flicy v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Local Level Monitoring Committee of Parappukara Panchayath

## **`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. 8944 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SMT. FLICY AGED 55 YEARS W/O. JAMES, KALAN HOUSE, NELLAYI DESOM, NELLAYI P.O, PARAPPUKARA VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 305. ``` ## **`BY ADV ANU S. NAIR`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, IRINJALAKKUDA P.O, PIN – 680 125.`** ``` 2THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF PARAPPUKARA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURE OFFICE, PARAPPUKARA MAPRANAM-NANDIKARA ROAD, KALLIKADAVIL MUTHRATHIKARA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680 310. ``` ## **`SMT.R.DEVI SHRI - GP`** ``` 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.8944 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 19.36 Ares of land in Block No.035, Sy. No.1058 of Parappukara Village, Mukundapuram Taluk in 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008’). However, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘the ``` WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` Rules’) before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P5 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the LLMC is convinced that the property was part of padasekharam and has coconut trees and plantains and the property was converted after 2008 and has to be retained in the Data Bank. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 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. 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 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 ``` WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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.P5, 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 to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. 6. This Court had 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 ``` WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024 ``` ## **`5`** Act, 2008 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 the 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. 7. In **Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has held that the predominant factor for consideration ``` WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 and feasible. 8. 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 Form 5 application has been taken into account while passing the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P5 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.P4 application in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision 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 ``` WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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 petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- ## **`MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE`** SPR ``` WP(C).No.8944 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY DATED 18.05.2023. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2307/1999 DATED 03.05.1999. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK DATED 04.12.2020. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 29.07.2023. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.7566/2023 DATED 22.01.2024 ISSUED BY 1 ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.`**