Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with Ext.P3 set aside...

T. K. Santhosh v. The District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam; Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi Revenue Divisional Office; Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk Office; Village Officer, Nedumbassery Village Office; Agriculture Officer, Nedumbassery Krishi Bhavan; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.37324 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • VIJU ABRAHAM
Judgment Date
2023-11-13
Court Decision / Holding
Ext.P3 set aside; 2nd Respondent (RDO) directed to reconsider Form-5 application; Petitioner to obtain KSRSEC Report within two weeks; RDO to pass a fresh Form-5 order within three months of receipt of KSRSEC Report after considering the report and Rule 4(4f) factors and conducting a site inspection; writ petition disposed as above; petitioner may file argument notes with copies of judgments relied upon.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with Ext.P3 set aside; directions for rehearing Form-5 with KSRSEC report and independent assessment; fresh order to be issued within three months, after site inspection and Rule 4(4f) considerations.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • T. K. SANTHOSH

Respondents

  • The District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam
  • Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi Revenue Divisional Office, Ernakulam
  • Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk Office
  • Village Officer, Nedumbassery Village Office
  • Agriculture Officer, Nedumbassery Krishi Bhavan
  • Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Shakthi Prakash Muhasin
  • • K.M. Amjatha
  • • D.A. Farhana K.H.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, T. K. Santhosh, challenges Ext.P3, an order rejecting his Form-5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, based on an Agricultural Officer’s report. He holds 2.02 acres in Nedumbassery, Aluva Taluk. The Court cites a line of precedents emphasizing the Data Bank’s scope and the status of land as of key dates. Salim C.K. et al. hold that the Data Bank should include only cultivable paddy land and wetlands within LLMC’s jurisdiction. Lalu P.S. clarifies that the Data Bank data corresponds to land as on 24.12.2008, while Joy v. RDO/Sub Collector stresses that the land’s character and fitness on 12.08.2008 determine inclusion or exclusion. Arthasasthra Ventures LLP v. State of Kerala allows resort to scientific data like satellite imagery if material is insufficient. Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO underscore independent assessment and the predominant factor of paddy feasibility for Form-5. Despite these standards, the Ext.P3 order was passed solely on LLMC’s stance without independent verification. The Court sets aside Ext.P3 and directs the 2nd respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application, obtain the KSRSEC report, and decide afresh within three months, after site inspection and weighing Rule 4(4f) factors. The Petitioner may file argument notes with relevant judgments.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Independent assessment by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) when considering Form-5 applications
  • Predominant factor: land’s status as paddy land or wetland as of 12.08.2008 / date Act came into force
  • Data Bank should reflect only cultivable paddy land and wetlands within LLMC jurisdiction
  • If materials are insufficient, resort to scientific data (e.g., satellite imagery) from KSRSEC
  • Removal from Data Bank requires demonstrating adverse effects on paddy cultivation or wetlands through independent findings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the Data Bank and Form-5 process must be anchored to the land’s status under the Act as of 2008, not merely on LLMC’s post facto decisions. Citing Salim C.K.; Lalu P.S.; Joy; Arthasasthra Ventures LLP; Muraleedharan Nair; Aparna Sasi Menon, the petitioner argues for independent assessment by the RDO, incorporation of satellite/KSREC data when materials are insufficient, and strict application of Rule 4(4f) to consider all factors before deciding removal from the Data Bank. The petitioner’s Form-5 should be evaluated considering paddy feasibility and potential impact on wetlands, with a fresh KSRSEC report guiding the final decision; the order Ext.P3 should be set aside to permit a reasoned, evidence-based fresh determination, including site inspection.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the LLMC’s decision to keep the land within the Data Bank and rely on the data already available, urging adherence to statutory provisions and administrative procedures. They contend that Form-5 requires examination of data bank criteria and that LLMC decisions can influence, but not automatically determine, removal. They argue for consistency with the Act and Rules, and for evaluation based on available materials, with reliance on KSRSEC data only when necessary. They submit that the RDO’s independent assessment should be exercised with caution to preserve the integrity of the Data Bank and paddy-land conservation goals.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others2017 (1) KHC 394PositiveStates that the Data Bank should contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within LLMC jurisdiction; relied upon to shape Data Bank scope.
Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala2020 (5) KHC 490PositiveData Bank is the cultivable paddy land existing as on 24.12.2008; informs date-based inclusion criteria.
Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector2021 (1) KLT 433PositiveStatus of land on 12.08.2008 determines inclusion/exclusion from Data Bank.
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222PositiveIf material is insufficient, RDO should resort to scientific data (satellite) and assess land’s fitness for paddy.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer2023 (4) KLT 270PositiveRemoval from Data Bank requires independent assessment; LLMC alone not sufficient.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer2023 (5) KLT 432PositivePredominant factor is feasibility of paddy cultivation when considering Form-5.

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 T. K. Santhosh v. The District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam; Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi Revenue Divisional Office; Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk Office; Village Officer, Nedumbassery Village Office; Agriculture Officer, Nedumbassery Krishi Bhavan; Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**W.P.(C) No.37324 of 2023 1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** ## **MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 37324 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** T. K. SANTHOSH,AGED 58 YEARS,S/O. KUMARAN, PANAKKAL HOUSE, EDAPPALLY P.O., PUTHUPALLIPRAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024 BY ADVS. SHAKTHI PRAKASH MUHASIN K.M. AMJATHA D.A. FARHANA K.H. ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030 - 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,FORT KOCHI REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K B JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001 - 3 THE TAHSILDAR,ALUVA TALUK OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101 - 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, KARIYAD, MEKKAD, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683589 - 5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,NEDUMBASSERY KRISHI BHAVAN, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683585 - 6 THE DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S. ## **W.P.(C) No.37324 of 2023 2** THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **W.P.(C) No.37324 of 2023 3** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** ----------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No.37324 of 2023** --------------------------------- ## **Dated this the 13[th] day of of November, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P3 order, whereby Ext.P2, Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the 2[nd] respondent relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer and that there is no independent consideration by the 2[nd] respondent. 2. The petitioner is the owner, who is in absolute possession and enjoyment of an extent of 2.02 Ares in survey No.252/29-3-2 of Nedumbassery Village in Aluva Taluk of Ernakulam District. 3. This Court in _**Salim C.K. and Another v.**_ ## _**State of Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394]**_ has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. ## **W.P.(C) No.37324 of 2023 4** Further in _**Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala[2020 (5) KHC 490]**_ has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In _**Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector[2021 (1) KLT 433]**_ it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in _**Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala[2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222]**_ has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. This court in _**Muraleedharan Nair v.**_ ## **W.P.(C) No.37324 of 2023 5** _**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 the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. Further, this Court in _**Aparna**_ ## _**Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (5)**_ _**KLT 432]**_ 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. ## **W.P.(C) No.37324 of 2023 6** 4. In spite of these categorical declaration by this Court in a catena of judgments as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected solely relying on the decision of the LLMC that not to remove the paddy land from the data bank. 5. In view of the above, Ext.P3 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner submits an application to the Agricultural Officer concerned seeking to obtain KSRSEC Report, paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass an order afresh in the Form-5 application within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the KSRSEC Report and take a final decision in the matter after considering the report as well as the relevant factors stipulated in Rule 4 (4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and after a site inspection. ## **W.P.(C) No.37324 of 2023 7** Petitioner will be free to file argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him to substantiate his contentions and the 2[nd] respondent RDO while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the findings of this Court in the judgments cited (supra) and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by him. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** pm **W.P.(C) No.37324 of 2023 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37324/2023** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.07.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 07.01.2021 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY