High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-19The writ petition is disposed of with the above...

Sunilkumar K.P. and Asha Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; Village Officer, Karukutty; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Karukutty; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.11125 of 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman
Judgment Date: 2024-03-19
Court Decision / Holding: Exts.P3 & P3(a) are set aside; the 1st respondent, RDO, is directed to reconsider Form 5 applications in accordance with law, obtaining a KSRSEC report at the petitioners’ expense, and to decide within two months from the receipt of the KSRSEC report. The petitioners must apply for the KSRSEC report within two weeks; copies of the writ petition and judgment must be produced to the 1st respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions.
Final Disposition: The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SUNILKUMAR.K.P
ASHA NAIR V.L

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer, RDO Office, Fort Kochi, Ernakulam District
The Village Officer, Karukutty, Ernakulam District
The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Karukutty, Ernakulam District
Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, Thiruvananthapuram (KSREC)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Wilson Urmese

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt.K.AMMINIKUTTY, Sr.Government Pleader
• Sri.VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC, KSREC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Exts.P3 and P3(a) by which Form 5 applications filed to remove certain lands from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 were rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The petitioners own 0.76 acres (Sy.Nos. 914/6A, 915/1E) and 3.95 acres (Sy.Nos. 914/6A, 915/1E) in Karukutty Village, Ernakulam District. They contend the properties do not fall within paddy land or wetland as defined by the Act, and were wrongly included in the Data Bank; hence Form 5 should be allowed to remove them. The RDO relied on a report from the Agricultural Officer and the LLMC’s recommendation not to remove, without independent assessment of the status of the land as on the date of the Act’s coming into force. The petition cites several precedents: Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, which require the RDO to independently evaluate the land’s status, and to consider whether removal would adversely affect paddy cultivation or wetlands. The court ultimately sets aside Exts.P3 and P3(a), directing the RDO to reconsider Form 5 applications in light of law, obtain a KSRSEC report, and issue a fresh decision within two months, with the petitioners bearing the cost of the KSRSEC report.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 4(4E)Rule 4(4F)Rule 4(d) (Form-5)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Independent assessment by the Revenue Divisional Officer is required for Form-5 removals
Predominant factor is whether the land was fit for paddy cultivation as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008
Removal from Data Bank should be based on its impact on paddy cultivation and sustenance of wetlands, not solely on LLMC recommendations
LLMC reports cannot be the sole deciding factor without independent verification by the RDO
The land’s status as on the date of Act 2008 is a crucial criterion for inclusion/removal from the Data Bank

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders are vitiated by non‑application of mind and are contrary to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules, 2008, as well as binding precedents. They maintain that the land was not paddy land or wetland as on the date of the Act and—despite this—the Data Bank wrongly includes it. They had filed Form 5 under Rule 4(d) seeking removal, but the RDO rejected the application relying solely on an Agricultural Officer’s report that did not independently assess the land’s status. The petition relies on Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, to argue that the RDO must independently determine whether removal from the Data Bank would adversely affect paddy cultivation or wetlands, and consider the KSRSEC report. They seek quashing of Exts.P3/P3(a) and a direction to re‑decide in accordance with law, with KSRSEC report obtained at petitioners’ cost.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the RDO’s orders, arguing that the decision was based on the Agricultural Officer’s report and LLMC’s recommendation—notwithstanding the petitioners’ claim of lack of independent assessment. They emphasize that land status as per pre‑2008 conditions, lack of conversion before 2008, and surrounding paddy lands justify retention in the Data Bank. They rely on the statutory framework (Act and Rules) and precedent to argue that Form 5 should be decided with due consideration of evidence, and that LLMC’s view carries weight unless independently contradicted. They pray for dismissal of the writ petition, maintaining the validity of the orders.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	The court cites this decision to require independent assessment by the RDO and to consider the land’s status as of the Act’s date and its suitability for paddy cultivation.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	The court uses this decision to reject the notion that LLMC alone can justify dismissal; independent verification by the RDO is required.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (6) KHC 83	Positive	This decision is cited for the principle that the predominant consideration is whether the land can be paddy cultivated; Form-5 assessment should focus on paddy feasibility.

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 Sunilkumar K.P. and Asha Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; Village Officer, Karukutty; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Karukutty; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO.11125 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 SUNILKUMAR.K.P, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR, 'KRISHNANJANA', KARUKUTTY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683576`** - **`2 ASHA NAIR V.L, AGED 41 YEARS W/O.SUNILKUMAR.K.P., 'KRISHNANJANA', KARUKUTTY P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683576`** ``` BY ADV.WILSON URMESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001`** - **`2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KARUKUTTY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683576`** - **`3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KARUKUTTY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683576`** - **`4 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695033`** ``` BY SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC, KSREC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.11125 of 2024 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P3 & P3(a) orders, whereby Form 5 applications submitted by the have been rejected by the 1[st] respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer [RDO]. ``` ``` 2. The 1[st]petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.76 Ares of land comprised in Sy.Nos.914/6A, 915/1E [Re.Sy.No.180/10-5] in Block No.3 of Karukutty Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District. ``` ``` 3. The 2[nd]petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.95 Ares of land comprised in Sy.Nos.914/6A, 915/1E [Re.Sy.No.180/10-3] in Block No.3 of Karukutty Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District. ``` ``` 4. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid ``` W.P.(C) No.11125 of 2024 3 ``` properties will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for brevity, ‘the Act, 2008’). However, the properties are wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed applications in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 [for brevity, ‘the Rules, 2008’] before the RDO to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the RDO vide Exts.P3 & P3(a) orders stating that as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the land is not converted before 2008 and the lands around the subject properties are paddy lands and the Local Level Monitoring Committee [LLMC] has recommended not to remove the properties from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 4. The petitioners have filed this writ ``` W.P.(C) No.11125 of 2024 4 ``` petition challenging Exts.P3 & P3(a) contending, inter alia, that the same are 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. Rule 4(4E) of the Rules, 2008 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 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.11125 of 2024 5 ``` Scientific Technological Institutions and pass appropriate orders on the application. On a perusal of Exts.P3 & P3(a), 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 RDO has refused to remove the property from the Data Bank. ``` ``` 6. This Court has 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 as on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. In Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court has held that when ``` W.P.(C) No.11125 of 2024 6 ``` 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 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. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has held that the predominant factor for determination while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is ``` W.P.(C) No.11125 of 2024 7 ``` sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. ``` ``` In spite of the categorical declarations by this Court in the decisions cited above, the petitioners’ applications have 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 a Form 5 application has been taken into account while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, I find that Exts.P3 & P3(a) orders cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent, the RDO, to reconsider the applications in Form 5 in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after considering the KSRSEC report to be obtained at the expense of the petitioners and other relevant factors mentioned in Rule 4(4F), ``` W.P.(C) No.11125 of 2024 8 ``` within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report of the KSRSEC. The petitioners 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 petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the 1[st] respondent for due compliance. ``` ``` The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` ``` sp/21/03/2024 ``` W.P.(C) No.11125 of 2024 9 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT OF THE LAND FOR THE YEAR 2023-24, DATED 27.04.2023 ``` ``` Exhibit P1(a)TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF FOR THE YEAR 2023-24, DATED 27.04.2023 ``` ``` Exhibit p2TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS LAND ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, VIDE PROCEEDINGS DATED 08.03.2023 ``` ``` Exhibit P3(a)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, VIDE PROCEEDINGS DATED 08.03.2023 Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2017,ISSUEDBYTHE1ST RESPONDENT, ```