High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-21Writ petition disposed of. Ext. P3 quashed; dir...

Taniya A Kalam v. Revenue Divisional Officer, LLMC (Kerala) and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 11606 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-03-21
Court Decision / Holding: Ext. P3 order is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, expeditiously and within three months from receipt of this judgment. If the petitioner files a request for KSREC, the KSREC report should be obtained and considered; if a fresh KSREC report is directed, the Revenue Divisional Officer must decide the Form 5 application within three months from the date of receipt of the KSREC report. The petitioner shall produce certified copies of the judgment and petition with exhibits before the 1st respondent for compliance.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of. Ext. P3 quashed; directions issued for reconsideration of Form 5 with KSREC input within specified time frames.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Taniya A Kalam

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, Kochi, Kerala
Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) constituted under Act 28 of 2008 of Karumalloor Gram Panchayath
Agricultural Officer, KrishibHAVANKARUMALLOOR, Aluva, Ernakulam District
Village Officer, Karumalloor Village Office, Aluva, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. George Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

• SMT Devi Shri R., Government Pleader (GP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext. P3, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting the petitioner’s Form 5 application for removal of land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner, Taniya A Kalam, owns 11.61 acres of land across Sy.No. 82/11 and Sy.No. 82/9B-2 in Karumalloor Village, Ernakulam District, classified as nilam in the Data Bank. The land lies in a residential area with public roads nearby, and the petitioner contends the data bank classification is erroneous. Form 5 was submitted seeking exclusion of the land from the Data Bank. Ext. P3, dated 14.07.2023, rejects the application, supposedly relying on the LLMC’s decision, without hearing the petitioner, without site inspection, and without obtaining/considering a KSREC report or applying mind to statutory provisions or binding judgments. The petitioner argues that the crucial question—whether the land was fit for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008—was not addressed and the KSREC report was not properly weighed. The respondents contend Ext. P3 is based on the LLMC decision and the Agricultural Officer’s report. The court notes Ext. P3 is not a speaking order. Relying on Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, the court holds that the RDO must independently assess the land’s status and its impact on paddy cultivation or wetlands before deciding Form 5. The judgment sets aside Ext. P3 and directs the RDO to reconsider the Form 5 application within three months, while permitting KSREC input and requiring the petitioner to file for KSREC if needed, with timelines and compliance steps.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P3 is a non-speaking order, and it was passed without hearing the petitioner, site inspection, or reference to the KSREC report. It fails to apply mind to the statutory provisions and binding judgments of this Court, particularly with regard to whether the land was fit for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008. The Form 5 application hinges on a correct classification in the Data Bank and a scientific verification of land status as of the relevant date. The impugned order ignores the primary criterion for Form 5—feasibility of paddy cultivation—and relies solely on the LLMC’s decision and a lone officer’s report. The petitioner seeks a certiorari to quash Ext. P3, mandamus to reconsider Ext. P2, and production of translated documents where necessary, with a KSREC report and proper reasoning.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Ext. P3 is grounded in the LLMC’s decision and corroborated by the Agricultural Officer’s report. They contend that the RDO’s order is supported by the material before him and the statutory scheme, and that the LLMC’s determination appropriately informs the decision. They may argue that the Form 5 process contemplates reliance on the data bank and expert reports, and that the decision need not address every potential factual question if the record supports the dismissal of the application.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	The court cites this case to emphasize that reliance on LLMC’s decision alone is insufficient; the RDO must independently assess the land’s status before removing it from the Data Bank.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (5) KLT 432	Positive	The court references the principle that the predominant factor in Form 5 is whether the land can be cultivated as paddy, guiding the RDO’s assessment.

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 Taniya A Kalam v. Revenue Divisional Officer, LLMC (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.

WP(C) NO. 11606 OF 2024 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 11606 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **TANIYA A KALAM, AGED 37 YEARS D/O LATE ABDUL KALAM, BHAVANAKARUKAPADATH HOUSE, VELLIYATH NADU P.O ,ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ., PIN - 683102** ## **BY ADV GEORGE SEBASTIAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB RD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI, KERALA 682001., PIN - 682001** - **2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE(LLMC) CONSTITUTED UNDER ACT 28 OF 2008 OFKARUMALLURGRAMAPANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVANKARUMALLOOR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683511** - **3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN,KARUMALLOOR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683511** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, KARUMALLOOR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM ., PIN - 683511** WP(C) NO. 11606 OF 2024 2 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT DEVI SHRI R, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO. 11606 OF 2024 3 # **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 11606 of 2024** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : (i) “To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the originals of Exhibit P3 and quash the same. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the 1st respondent to allow Ext. P2 application as prayed for. (iii) To dispense with the production of English translation of Vernacular documents (iv) To grant such other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper.” [sic] 2. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 11.61 ares of immovable property made up of 7.69 ares in Sy.No.82/11 and 3.92 ares in Sy.No.82/9B-2 of Karumalloor Village in North Paravur Taluk in Ernakulam District. The property is a dry land is WP(C) NO. 11606 OF 2024 4 the submission. According to the petitioner, the property is situated in a residential area and public roads are there near the property. According to the petitioner, the property is wrongly classified as 'nilam' in the notified data bank prepared by the 2[nd] respondent. Hence, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application in Form 5 before the 1[st] respondent. According to the petitioner, without hearing the petitioner, without conducting any site inspection and without obtaining a report from the KSREC, the 1[st] respondent passed Ext.P3 order rejecting Ext.P2. The said order was passed without any application of mind and without referring to the statutory provisions and binding judgments of this Court is the submission. According to the petitioner, the crucial question whether the property was fit for paddy cultivation as on the date of coming into force of the Act 28 of 2008 is not considered is the submission. Hence, this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and WP(C) NO. 11606 OF 2024 5 the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 is not a speaking order. Except relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the contention of the petitioner is not adverted while passing Ext.P3 order. In **Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court observed that, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that Local Level Monitoring Committee has decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank. 5. 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 the Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question and 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. WP(C) NO. 11606 OF 2024 6 6. In **Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (5) KLT 432], this Court observed that the predominant factor for consideration while considering Form 5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from the Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible or feasible. 7. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is passed in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not applied his mind and simply accepted the report. It is also submitted that, the KSREC report is not properly considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The contention of the petitioner is that the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 is not ascertained properly as per scientific process. 8. After going through the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The WP(C) NO. 11606 OF 2024 7 contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 1[st] respondent while passing the order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) Ext.P3 order is set aside. b) The 1[st] respondent is directed to reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. c) The petitioner is free to submit an application before the appropriate authority for getting the KSREC report within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and if such an application is filed, the authority concerned will do the needful to obtain the same, in accordance with law. If KSREC report is available, the same will be considered by the 1[st] respondent. If fresh KSREC report is called for, the Revenue WP(C) NO. 11606 OF 2024 8 Divisional Officer need to consider the Form 5 application only within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report from KSREC. d) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1[st ] respondent for compliance. ## **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS WP(C) NO. 11606 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11606/2024** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THELAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.09.2023 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.03.2022SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER FORM 5 BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2023BEARING FILE NUMBER 931/2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 22.02.2024 OF THE PETITIONERS FATHER ISSUED FROM KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY** **Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM MODERN HOSPITAL KODUNGALLUR DATED 15.11.2023 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER** **Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM MODERN HOSPITAL KODUNGALLUR DATED 08.02.2024 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER**