Sunil Chacko v. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thripunithura; Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, Ernakulam District; Local Level Monitoring Committee, Thripunithura

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA,** # **1945** # **WP(C) NO. 7233 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SUNIL CHACKO AGED 60 YEARS S/O V.C. CHACKO VATTOLIL HOUSE, SHINE ROAD VYTTILA , ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682019 ## BY ADV JACOB CHACKO ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM MINI CIVIL STATION BUILDING, PIN - 682301 - 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORTKOCHI ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001 - 3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE THRIPUNITHURA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN/ AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THRIPUNITHURA KRISHI BHAVAN, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP SMT. DEVISHREE ## **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC No.7233/2024 ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P2 whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer and the recommendation of Local Level Monitoring Committee (for short ‘LLMC’). 2. The is the co-owner in petitioner possession of an extent of 5.20 Ares of property in Sy.No.54 in Block No.185 of Nadama Village along with his wife. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wet land as defined under the WPC No.7233/2024 ``` 3 ``` Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008' for short). However, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank as ‘Nilam’. The petitioner filed an application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 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.P2 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the LLMC on inspection of subject land is convinced that the land is ‘Nilam’ and need not be removed from the Data Bank. WPC No.7233/2024 ``` 4 ``` 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 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 wetland is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. On a perusal of Ext.P2, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and the recommendation of the LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data WPC No.7233/2024 ``` 5 ``` ## Bank. 6. This Court has held 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 Act 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 WPC No.7233/2024 ``` 6 ``` has decided not to remove the land from 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 (4) KLT 270], this Court has held that the predominant factor for determination while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is WPC No.7233/2024 ``` 7 ``` sought to be excluded from 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. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P2 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 2[nd] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Form 5 application in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after obtaining the KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner, within a period of two months WPC No.7233/2024 ``` 8 ``` from the date of receipt of the report from 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 the copy of the judgment before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The writ petition is disposed as above. Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** al/-.23.02.2024. WPC No.7233/2024 ``` 9 ``` ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7233/2024** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATABANK SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY REJECTION ORDER NO. K11/15860/2022 OF FROM 5 DATED 14.11.2023 FROM THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 THE PRESENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY