High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-04-27Writ petition disposed of.

Subash John v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.21560 of 2018

Neutral Citation:N/A

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Viju Abraham
Judgment Date: 2023-04-27
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of by directing the LLMC to reconsider Ext. P3 after calling for KSRSEC report, at the petitioner’s expense, and to decide within two months. The LLMC shall file a report to the RDO regarding the lie and nature of the land and, if included in the data bank, its description. The RDO shall reconsider Ext. P4 in light of the Ext. P6 observations (including tree growth) and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within one month. The court also directs that Ext. P4 be re-evaluated in accordance with the law and references Puthan Purakkal Joseph and Geo Peter for context. The overall aim is to ensure proper compliance with the Act and Rules in determining data bank inclusion/exclusion.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Subash John

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha-686559
Village Officer, Koothattukulam-686152
Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Koothattukulam-686152

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Roy Chacko
• Sri K. C. Vincent

Counsels for Respondents

• Sr. GP Aswin Sethumadhan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Subash John challenges Exts. P6 and P7 concerning inclusion of his lands in the Kerala Paddy Land and Wet Land Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, and seeks removal from the data bank of 2.83 ares in survey No.563/14/1 (which is included) and deletion or non-inclusion of 8.90 ares in survey No.563/14/2 (which is not included). He had earlier filed Ext. P3 seeking deletion of 2.83 ares and Ext. P4 a KLU Clause 6 remedy for 8.90 ares, which are connected to a 2017 directive in W.P. No. 28027/2017 (Ext. P5). The LLMC had decided, via Ext. P7 and a report, to retain 2.83 ares in the data bank and include 8.90 ares; the Agricultural Officer’s Ext. P6 report corroborated inclusion of the lands in question. The petitioner contends procedural lapses in not following statutory procedures and seeks remand for proper KSRSEC reporting. The court directs remand: LLMC must reconsider Ext. P3 after KSRSEC reporting and the RDO must reconsider Ext. P4 after hearing, within two months, and references Shivadasan v. RDO (2017) and other precedents for guidance. The judgment emphasizes compliance with the Act and rules and affords the petitioner an opportunity to present arguments.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that 8.90 acres in Survey No.563/14/2 has never been included in the data bank, while 2.83 acres in Survey No.563/14/1 is included. Ext. P3 seeks deletion of 2.83 acres, and Ext. P4 seeks relief under Clause 6 of the KLU for the 8.90 acres not included. The 2017 Ext. P5 directions require LLMC and the Agricultural Officer to inspect, determine current lie and nature, and state whether the land is in the draft/notified data bank, with description, and to submit before the RDO. The petitioner challenges the LLMC’s Ext. P7 and the subsequent Ext. P6 (RDO) decision not to exclude 2.83 and to include 8.90, arguing procedural lapses and failure to call for KSRSEC reporting. He seeks quashing/extending safeguards under the Act and a proper reconsideration by LLMC and RDO with due process and hearing.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the data bank records and the LLMC report reflect findings that the lands in question are liable to be included or described in the data bank, and that the matter falls within the statutory framework of the Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and KLU. They emphasize adherence to statutory procedures and the LLMC’s role to report to the RDO, highlighting that Ext. P6 and the subsequent actions were conducted within the law, subject to the Court’s remand for re-evaluation with due KSRSEC input and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2017 (3) KLT 822	Positive	The court uses the declaration in Shivadasan to direct LLMC/RDO actions, indicating a positive, binding-like follow-through of that precedent.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector	2015 (3) KLT 182	Mentioned Only	Cited in the Ext.P5 context as a referenced judgment, not expressly followed or distinguished in the current order.
Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2019 (3) KLT 838	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the evidentiary framework; no direct application of its holdings is stated in the current directions.

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 Subash John v. State of Kerala 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 VIJU ABRAHAM** **THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 7TH VAISAKHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 21560 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** SUBASH JOHN AGED 51 YEARS S/O P.P.JOHN, POONTHOTTAM HOUSE, ELANJI P.O.,ELANJI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-686665. BY ADVS. SRI.ROY CHACKO SRI.K.C.VINCENT 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, 686559. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KOOTHATTUKULAM - 686152. 4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN, KOOTHATTUKULAM – 686152. SR.GP- ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **W.P.(C).No.21560 of 2018 2** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM,J** ## **-----------------------** ## **W.P.(C).No.21560 of 2018** ## **------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of April, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P6 and P7. The case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of 8.90 ares of properties comprised in survey No.563/14/2 of Koothattukulam Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk and property having an extent of 2.83 ares comprised in survey No.563/14/1. 2. Petitioner submits that at present the lands are having tree growth aged about 12 years and considering the above fact, land having an extent of 8.90 ares comprised in survey No.563/14/2 is not included in the data bank prepared as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008. As regard the land comprised in survey No.563/14/1 having an extent of 2.83 ares, the same has been included in Ext.P2 data bank. Thereupon, ## **W.P.(C).No.21560 of 2018 3** petitioner filed Ext.P3 application for removing the property having an extent of 2.83 ares from the data bank and also Ext.P4 application under KLU order in respect of the land having an extent of 8.90 ares, which is not included in the data bank. For expeditious consideration of both the applications the petitioner has approached this Court filing WP(C) No.28027/2017 and this Court disposed the said writ petition as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 24.8.2017. The relevant portion of the said judgment in paragraphs 3 and 4 are extracted below: _“3. Since there are two separate extents categorized as paddy lands one of which is not included in the data bank the following procedure shall be adopted. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition before the Agricultural Officer, the Convener of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, along with the copy of the Field Measurement Book and Survey and Sub-division numbers with respect to the properties, obtained from the concerned Village Officer. The Agricultural Officer, who is the Convener of the LLMC, shall require the LLMC_ ## **W.P.(C).No.21560 of 2018 4** _to conduct inspection of the property, and prepare a report as to the lie and nature of the property as of now and on the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, and specify whether it is included in the draft/notified data bank and if so, the manner in which the property is described in the draft/notified data bank and submit it before the RDO._ _4. With respect of 8.90 ares of property in Survey No.563/14/2, the LLMC shall file a report before the RDO as to the lie and nature and if included in the data bank, the description of the property in the data bank. The RDO shall then consider the application at Ext.P4 in accordance with the declaration in_ _**Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer – 2017 (3) KLT 822** . The petitioner if succeeds in the claim for deletion of 2.83 ares comprised in Survey No.563/14/1 from the data bank, shall be entitled to file a further application under Clause(6) for the said land.”_ 3. A decision was taken by the LLMC, based on Ext.P7 report, not to remove the property having an extent of 2.83 ares from the data bank and also to include 8.90 ares of property in the data bank. Subsequently, by Ext.P6 the Agricultural Officer ## **W.P.(C).No.21560 of 2018 5** forwarded the decision of the LLMC to the RDO, wherein they have decided not to exclude 2.83 from the data bank and also observed that land having an extent of 8.90 ares is to be included in the data bank. Petitioner submits that in respect of 2.83 ares of land the decision not to remove the said land from the data bank was without following any procedures as contemplated, even without calling for a KSRSEC report. As regard the other extent of land having an extent of 8.90 ares this Court in Ext.P5 have only directed the LLMC to file a report before the RDO as to the lie and nature and if included in the data bank, to furnish the description of the property in the data bank, etc. ## 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that a report has been submitted along with Ext.P6 communication, wherein it is found that the property is in question are liable to be included in the Data Bank. 6. As regard the decision in Ext.P6 in respect ## **W.P.(C).No.21560 of 2018 6** of 2.83 ares of land, since it has been decided not to remove the said land from the data bank without following any procedures contemplated in the Act and Rules and without calling for a KSRSEC report, the same has to be set aside and remitted back for reconsideration by the LLMC. As regard the other extent of land having an extent of 8.90 ares, petitioner has a specific case that the property is converted prior to 2008 and admittedly in the report submitted it has been stated that there are trees aged more than 5 years standing in the property. Petitioner's specific contention is that in Ext.P5 judgment the Court has only directed the LLMC to file a report before the RDO as to the lie and nature of the land and if it is included in the data bank, the description of the property in the data bank. Therefore, Ext.P6 is set aside to the extent it decided not to exclude 2.83 ares of land comprised in survey No.563/14/1 from the data bank and also the observation by the LLMC to the effect that the property having an extent of 8.90 ares in ## **W.P.(C).No.21560 of 2018 7** Survey No.563/14/2 is liable to be included in the data bank. I am of the opinion that since the property has not been included in the data bank as on date, it is for the RDO to reconsider the KLU application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law. Therefore, above writ petition is disposed of directing the 4[th] respondent LLMC to reconsider Ext.P3 application in accordance with law after calling for KSRSEC report, at the expense of the petitioner, and take a decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner is free to submit his notes of argument before the 4[th] respondent. As regard Ext.P4 application is concerned, the 2[nd] respondent shall reconsider the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observation in Ext.P6 report regarding the tree growth and the judgments in _**Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015 (3) KLT 182)**_ and _**Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2019 (3) KLT 838)**_ . ## **W.P.(C).No.21560 of 2018 8** The 2[nd] respondent RDO shall take a decision on Ext.P4 application after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. **==> picture [94 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** pm **W.P.(C).No.21560 of 2018 9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21560/2018** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT-P1:|TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DT 17.06.2017| ||ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT-P2:|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE| ||DATA BANK RELATING TO KOOTHATTUKULAM| ||MUNICIPALITY.| |EXHIBIT-P3:|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED| ||22.08.2017, BEFORE THE LLMC FOR| ||CORRECTION OF DATA BANK.| |EXHIBIT-P4:|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED| ||14.07.2017 UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF KLU ORDER,| ||FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT-P5:|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)| ||NO.28027 OF 2017 DATED 24.08.2017.| |EXHIBIT-P6:|COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL| ||OFFICER DATED 23.12.2017.| |EXHIBIT-P7:|COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE LLMC MEETING| ||HELD ON 11.12.2017.|