High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-02-28Disposed in part; Ext.P4 quashed; remanded for ...

Ummu Salma P. v. The Sub Collector, Tirur, Revenue Divisional Office, Tirur; Agricultural Officer, Nannambra Agricultural Office, Nannambra P.O., Tirurangadi Taluk; Tahsildar, Tirurangadi Taluk; Village Officer, Nannambra Village Office; Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by its Convener

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.42811 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P4 is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, but within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner wishes, she may file for a KSREC report within two weeks; if such a report is sought, the responsible authority will obtain it and consider it in final Form 5 orders, which must be issued within three months from the date of receipt of KSREC’s report. Certified copies of this judgment and the writ petition with exhibits must be produced before the 1st respondent for compliance.
Final Disposition: Disposed in part; Ext.P4 quashed; remanded for reconsideration of Form 5 with directions to obtain KSREC input if sought, and to pass final orders within three months of KSREC report, with certified copies to be produced for compliance.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ummu Salma P.

Respondents

The Sub Collector, Tirur, Revenue Divisional Office, Tirur P.O., Malappuram District, PIN - 676101
The Agricultural Officer, Nannambra Agricultural Office, Nannambra P.O., Tirurangadi Taluk, Malappuram District, PIN - 676309
The Tahsildar, Tirurangadi Taluk, Tirurangadi P.O., Malappuram District, PIN - 676306
The Village Officer, Nannambra Village Office, Nannambra P.O., Tirurangadi Taluk, Malappuram District, PIN - 676309
The Local Level Monitoring Committee, represented by its Convener, Nannambra Agricultural Office, Nannambra P.O., Tirurangadi Taluk, Malappuram District, PIN - 676309

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.M. Mohammed Iqubal

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri E G Gordon, Sr. GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext. P4, the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order denying removal of the petitioner’s land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. The husband of the petitioner owns 32.57 acres in Survey No. 387/8-2 and 387/8-3 in Nannambra Village, Tirurangadi Taluk, which has been included in the Data Bank. He applied for removal, but Ext. P4 rejected it. The petitioner argues Ext. P4 is a non-speaking order and that the RDO did not independently assess whether removal would adversely affect paddy cultivation or wetlands, merely relying on a KSREC report and the Local Level Monitoring Committee’s decision. She contends the 12.08.2008 land-status was not scientifically ascertained and that the act requires reasoned consideration, with proper evaluation of paddy viability. The court cites Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO to emphasize that the RDO must independently evaluate the land’s status and the impact on paddy cultivation; Ext. P4’s lack of speaking reasons undermines validity. The judgment sets aside Ext. P4 and directs reconsideration of Form 5, with KSREC report to be sought if requested, and final orders within a prescribed period, while permitting certified copies for compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the land is owned by her husband who manages it from abroad; the land is dry, yet was included in the Data Bank by the 5th respondent. The Form 5 application seeking removal was rejected by Ext. P4, which is asserted to be a non-speaking order that fails to consider material factors. The KSREC report and Local Level Monitoring Committee’s conclusions cannot substitute for independent assessment by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The 12.08.2008 status of the land must be scientifically ascertained, and the Act requires reasoned analysis; the impugned order violates the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioner seeks quashing of Ext. P4 and removal of the land from the Data Bank, or at least a fresh Form 5 consideration after proper assessment and KSREC input.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the Data Bank serves to protect paddy and wetland interests and that the RDO’s Ext. P4 rests on material before him, including the KSREC report and the LCMC’s decision. They contend that removal from the Data Bank requires careful evaluation and that the RDO’s decision reflects due process and statutory intent to preserve paddy cultivation; while Ext. P4 may not be elaborate, it is grounded in the available evidence and policy considerations, consistent with prior guidance.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Court endorses the principle that the RDO must independently assess the land’s status and not merely rely on the Local Level Monitoring Committee’s decision; Ext. P4 was non-speaking for this reason.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (5) KLT 432	Positive	Court relies on the principle that the predominant factor in Form 5 should be whether paddy cultivation is possible, informing how removal from the Data Bank should be considered.

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 Ummu Salma P. v. The Sub Collector, Tirur, Revenue Divisional Office, Tirur; Agricultural Officer, Nannambra Agricultural Office, Nannambra P.O., Tirurangadi Taluk; Tahsildar, Tirurangadi Taluk; Village Officer, Nannambra Village Office; Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by its Convener 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 42811 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER(S):`** ``` UMMU SALMA P., AGED 39 YEARS ``` ``` W/O. USMAN PALLIKKAL, PALLIKKAL HOUSE, KODINHI, NANNAMBRA P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676309 ``` ``` BY ADV C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT(S):`** - **`1 THE SUB COLLECTOR, TIRUR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101`** - **`2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, NANNAMBRA AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, NANNAMBRA P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676309`** - **`3 THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI TALUK, TIRURANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676306`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NANNABRA VILLAGE OFFICE, NANNAMBRA P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676309`** - **`5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, NANNAMBRA AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, NANNAMBRA P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676309`** ## **`BY ADV.`** ``` SRI E G GORDEN, SR. GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.42811 OF 2023 ``` 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.42811 of 2023 ------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th ] day of February, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “a) Call for the records leading up to Ext.P4 order and quash the same by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1[st] respondent to pass an order removing the property covered by Ext.P1 document from the data bank. c) Pass an order dispensing with the production of English translation of vernacular documents at the time of filing of the writ petition. ``` WP(C) NO.42811 OF 2023 ``` 3 d) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time. ” [SIC] 2. The husband of the petitioner is the owner and in possession of 32.57 Ares of land in Survey No.387/8-2 and No.387/8-3 of Nannambra Village in Tirurangadi Taluk, is the submission. It is submitted that the the petitioner is managing the aforesaid property on his behalf since he is working abroad. He purchased the same for constructing a residential house is the submission. It is submitted that the land is a dry land. But, the said land is included in the data bank by the 5[th] respondent. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner filed an application before the 1[st] respondent to remove the property from the data bank, but it was rejected by virtue of Ext.P4 order. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 is not a speaking ``` WP(C) NO.42811 OF 2023 ``` 4 order and the Revenue Divisional Officer has not considered the matter in a proper manner. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 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.P4 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 Commitee 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, ``` WP(C) NO.42811 OF 2023 ``` 5 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 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 ``` WP(C) NO.42811 OF 2023 ``` 6 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 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.P4 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 ``` WP(C) NO.42811 OF 2023 ``` 7 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 any report from the KSREC is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to pass final orders in Form 5 application only within three months from the date of receipt of the report from KSREC. d) The petitioner will produce the ``` WP(C) NO.42811 OF 2023 ``` 8 certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. Sd/- nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` WP(C) NO.42811 OF 2023 ``` 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42811/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE NANNAMBRA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 17.01.2022 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE FROM 5 APPLICATION FILED BY THE HUSBAND OF PETITIONER DATED 09.02.2022 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.06.2023 ``` ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE**