Suresh Babu v. Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Sub Collector Ottapalam, Palakkad District and Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO.6104 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SURESH BABU, AGED 53 YEARS S/O.LATE P.C NAIR, THERATTU HOUSE, KOTHAYUR, VANIYAMKULAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.B.ARUNKUMAR POOJA K.S. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101`** - **`2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VANIYAMKULAM, VANIYAMKULAM P.O PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522`** - **`3 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, VANIYAMKULAM, VANIYAMKULAM P.O PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VANIYAMKULAM-1 VILLAGE, VANIYAMKULAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522`** ## **`SMT.R.DEVI SHRI, GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.6104 of 2024 2 ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 order whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the 1[st] respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer [RDO] solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. ``` ``` 2. Petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.99 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.69/2A of Vaniyamkulam-1 Village, Palakkad District. ``` ``` 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property 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, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 application in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala ``` W.P.(C) No.6104 of 2024 3 ``` Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the RDO to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the RDO vide Ext.P4 order stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the property was not converted before 2008 and conversion will adversely affect the environment and recommended to retain the same in the Data Bank. ``` ``` 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 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. It is also contended that the RDO should have called for a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre [for short, ‘the KSRSEC’] to ascertain the status of the land as on 12.08.2008, ``` W.P.(C) No.6104 of 2024 4 ``` the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008. ``` ``` 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.P4, 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 relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer to refuse 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.6104 of 2024 5 ``` 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. This Court, inMuraleedharan 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 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 ``` W.P.(C) No.6104 of 2024 6 ``` 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 consideration while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is 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 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.P4 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st] respondent, the RDO, to reconsider Ext.P3 application in accordance with ``` W.P.(C) No.6104 of 2024 7 ``` law and take a decision in the matter after obtaining KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner, within a period of 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 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/16/02/2024 ``` W.P.(C) No.6104 of 2024 8 ## **`APPENDIX`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` Exhibit P-1 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 11.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE VANIYALMKULAM-1VILLAGE OFFICE ``` ``` Exhibit P-2 ``` ``` THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE NATURE OF LAND OF THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS ADJACENT PROPERTIES ``` ``` Exhibit P-3TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION DATED 02.11.2021 ``` ``` Exhibit P-4 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ```