High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-22Disposed of with directions.

Soudabi v. District Collector, Malappuram and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 11839 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: Ext. P3 order set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s Form 5 application as expeditiously as possible, but in any event within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner submits a KSREC report or applies to obtain one within two weeks, the KSREC must be considered by the 2nd respondent. If KSREC report is called for anew, the Revenue Divisional Officer should decide the Form 5 application within three months from the date of receipt of the KSREC report. The petitioner shall file a certified copy of this judgment along with the writ petition and exhibits before the 2nd respondent.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Soudabi

Respondents

1. District Collector, Collectrate Road, Up Hill, Malappuram, PIN 676505
2. Revenue Divisional Officer, PerinthalmanNa Revenue Divisional Office, Shornur - Perinthalman Na Road, Shanti Nagar, PerinthalmanNa Malappuram, PIN 676322
3. Tahsildar Eranadu Taluk Office, Manjeri, Malappuram, PIN 676121
4. Village Officer, Malappuram Village Office, Kottappadi, Malappuram, PIN 676505
5. Agriculture Officer, Malappuram Krishi Bhavan, Malappuram, PIN 676505
6. Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, Vikasa Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN 695033

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• MUHASIN K.M.

Counsels for Respondents

• SHRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL - Standing Counsel
• SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner Soudabi seeks relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against the 2nd respondent’s order (Ext. P3) rejecting Form 5 of 2022 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Lands Act, 2008, and asks for quashing Ext. P3 and for a fresh, proper consideration after obtaining a KSREC report. The petition contends that the land in question was reclaimed before 2008 and thus should not be treated as paddy land, alleging that the impugned order relied solely on an Agricultural Officer’s report and did not involve scientific assessment or independent evaluation by the Revenue authorities. The petitioner also argues that the KSREC report was not properly considered, and the status of the land as of 12.08.2008 was not established by scientific process. The court notes that Ext. P3 is not a speaking order and that the ratio from Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO requires independent assessment by the competent authority and consideration of the land’s feasibility for paddy cultivation, rather than a routine reliance on a committee’s decision. The judgment ultimately allows the writ petition, setting aside Ext. P3 and directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Form 5 expeditiously—within three months—after obtaining KSREC, and to permit the petitioner to pursue KSREC reporting, with further directions for compliance and submission of certified copies.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Mandatory speaking/reasoned order in administrative decisions
Independent assessment by competent authority for land removal from Data Bank
Predominant factor for Form 5 is feasibility of paddy cultivation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P3 is not a speaking order and relies solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report; it asserts that the land was reclaimed prior to 2008 and that no independent, scientific assessment was performed. The petitioner urges the Court to quash Ext. P3 and to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the Form 5 application after obtaining a KSREC report and to obtain such report promptly, with the option to pursue KSREC reporting within two weeks. It is argued that the KSREC report, if properly considered, would establish that the land’s status in 2008 did not warrant exclusion from the Data Bank in the manner recorded. The petitioner also seeks waivers on translation and for expeditious action.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader reportedly defended the impugned order, arguing that it was based on the Agricultural Officer’s report and consistent with the statutory framework governing data-bank removal and Form 5 applications. The document, however, does not detail the respondents’ substantive arguments; it focuses on whether Ext. P3 constitutes a speaking order and whether independent assessment was performed. The court’s analysis centers on ensuring a reasoned, independent evaluation, and the need for KSREC data in deciding Form 5 matters, rather than on a full exposition of the respondents’ case-in-chief.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Cited to emphasize that the RDO must independently assess the land status and not simply rely on a committee’s decision when considering removal from the Data Bank.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (5) KLT 432	Positive	Cited for the proposition that the predominant factor in Form 5 considerations is whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation, guiding the court’s view on the necessity of proper scientific assessment.

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 Soudabi v. District Collector, Malappuram and Others 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 11839 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SOUDABI AGED 48 YEARS ``` ``` W/O MUSTHAFA, KADAKKADAN HOUSE, MANNAZHI, CHENGATTOOR P.O., MALPPURAM, PIN – 676503. ``` ``` BY ADV MUHASIN K.M. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTRATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676505`** - **`2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHORNUR - PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR,PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676322`** - **`3 THE TAHSILDAR ERANADU TALUK OFFICE, MANJERI ,MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676121`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MALAPPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAPPADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676505`** - **`5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER MALAPPURAM KRISHI BHAVAN, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676505`** - **`6 THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033`** ``` 2 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 11839 OF 2024 ``` ``` BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL- STANDING COUNSEL ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 11839 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with 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 6th 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 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. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order issued by the 2[nd] respondent rejecting the petitioner’s Form 5 application stating that the Agricultural Officer had reported that the property of the petitioner is still paddy land and has not been converted before 2008. According to the petitioner, the property of the petitioner was reclaimed much before the enactment of the 2008 Act. It is also ``` WP(C) NO. 11839 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` submitted that the petitioner’s application was rejected without obtaining scientific report from the KSREC. Therefore, it is submitted that the Ext.P3 order passed by the 2[nd] respondent is unsustainable. 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 Committee 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 ``` 5 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 11839 OF 2024 ``` 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 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. ``` WP(C) NO. 11839 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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: - a) Ext.P3 order is set aside. - b) The 2[nd] 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. - 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 11839 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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 fresh KSREC report is called for, the Revenue Divisional need to Officer consider the Form 5 application only within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report from KSREC. - d) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 2[nd] respondent for compliance. Sd/- **P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **JUDGE** S.M.K. ``` WP(C) NO. 11839 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX`** ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.10.2022 Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.10.2022 Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4TRUE COPY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ```