Thahira Jaleel v. District Collector, Thrissur and Others

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 9946 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` THAHIRA JALEEL, AGED 47 YEARS W/O. JALEEL, RAYAMMARYAKKAR HOUSE, ENAMAKKAL P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680510 ``` ``` BY ADVS. AMJATHA D.A. MUHASIN K.M. FARHANA K.H. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003` - `2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMMANDA ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125` - `3 THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, CHEMMANDA ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR-680125` - `4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NELLAYI VILLAGE OFFICE, NELLAYI SOUTH, THRISSUR, PIN - 680305` - `5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, PARAPPUKKARA KRISHI BHAVAN, PARAPPUKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680310` - `6 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033` 2 W.P(C).9946/2024 ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SMT.DEVI SHRI.R, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P(C).9946/2024 3 # **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.9946 of 2024** **------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: _i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext P3 order and quash the same._ _ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext P2 application and pass orders afresh after obtaining a report from the 6th respondent, KSREC with regard to the nature of the property as on 2008._ _jii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 6th respondent to file a report before the 2nd and 5th respondent with regard to nature and lie of the petitioner's property in 2008._ _iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents._ _V. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case._ **==> picture [32 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** W.P(C).9946/2024 4 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order issued by the 2[nd] respondent rejecting the petitioner’s From-5 application stating that the petitioner’s property has not been converted before 2008. The petitioner filed Form 5 application before the 2[nd] respondent for removing the property from the data bank. The 2[nd] respondent after obtaining a report from the 5[th] respondent passed Ext.P3 order rejecting the petitioner’s application stating that the petitioner’s property is not converted before 2008. According to the petitioner, the respondent had reached the said conclusion without any scientific evidence. It is also the case of the petitioner that the property of the petitioner was reclaimed much before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008 [for short, ‘the Act’]. It is also submitted that, only if a report from the KSREC is obtained with respect to the nature of the petitioner’s property as on 2008, a decision on the petitioner’s Form 5 application can be taken in a proper manner is the submission. Hence this Writ Petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. W.P(C).9946/2024 5 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 the 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. 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 W.P(C).9946/2024 6 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 contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 2[nd] 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. W.P(C).9946/2024 7 b) The 2[nd] 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 2[nd] respondent. If fresh KSREC report is called for, the Revenue 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 2[nd] respondent for compliance. Sd/- ## **P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Sbna/ W.P(C).9946/2024 8 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9946/2024` ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.01.2022 Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.05.2023 Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ```