High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-22Disposed of

V K Shaji and Prajisha Krishnan v. The District Collector, Kozhikode and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 11795 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
S.M.K.
Judgment Date: 2024-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed in part. Ext P4 is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, expeditiously but within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The petitioner may file for KSREC’s report within two weeks from receipt of the judgment, and if so, the authority shall take the necessary steps to obtain it. If KSREC report is available, the 2nd respondent shall consider the Form 5 application within three months from the date of receipt of the KSREC report. The petitioner shall furnish certified copies of this judgment and the petition with exhibits to the 2nd respondent for compliance.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V K Shaji
Prajisha Krishnan

Respondents

The District Collector, Kozhikode
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode
The Tahsildar, Kozhikode Taluk
The Village Officer, Chevayur
The Agriculture Officer, Puthiyara Krishi Bhavan
The Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

• Shri. Vishnu S. Chempazhathiyil (Standing Counsel)
• Sri. B.S. Syamantak, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext P4, a 12.12.2023 order of the 2nd respondent rejecting the petitioner's Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008, without independent assessment of the land’s status as on 12.08.2008 or a KSREC scientific report. The petitioner contends that Ext P4 relies solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report and that the KSREC findings were not properly considered; the requirement to obtain a KSREC report was ignored, and the court was urged to quash the order and direct reconsideration with fresh findings. The respondents argue Ext P4 is valid, grounded in the Agricultural Officer’s report and the Local Level Monitoring Committee’s decision not to remove the land from the Data Bank; they emphasize timely processing and compliance with law. The court notes Ext P4 is not a speaking order and fails to address the petitioner’s contentions, aligning with judicial dicta from Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO that a decision cannot rest only on committee reports. It also cites Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO to stress the crucial test: whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation. On these grounds, the court sets aside Ext P4 and directs reconsideration within specified timelines, with KSREC input to be sought if requested, and certified copies to be produced for compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Speaking order principle: a speaking order is required; a non-speaking order that relies on reports without addressing petitioner's contentions is unsustainable (Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer).
Predominant factor test: in Form 5 considerations, the land’s suitability for paddy cultivation is the key criterion (Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend Ext P4 is unsustainable as it was not a speaking order and did not independently assess the land’s status as on 12.08.2008 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Lands Act, 2008. They submit that the KSREC report was not properly considered, the status of the land was not scientifically ascertained, and the authority simply echoed the Agricultural Officer’s findings. They seek quashing of Ext P4 and a mandamus to reconsider Form 5 after obtaining KSREC input, in addition to directions to accept the KSREC report if sought, and to dispense with translation requirements as requested in the petitions. They request a timely reevaluation of the land’s eligibility for data bank exclusion and a proper, reasoned decision with compliance steps including certified copies.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain Ext P4 as a valid order, grounded on the Agricultural Officer’s report and the Local Level Monitoring Committee’s decision not to remove the land from the Data Bank. They argue that Form 5 procedures were followed, KSREC input, if required, being part of the process, and that a timely consideration of the application is feasible within statutory norms. They emphasize that the impugned decision reflected existing data, and that independent assessments are subject to the court’s deference to executive decisions unless illegal or procedurally defective.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (4) KLT 270	Positive	Cited to require an independent assessment by the RDO and not mere reliance on LLMC findings, illustrating why a non-speaking order is unsustainable.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2023 (5) KLT 432	Positive	Cited for the principle that the dominant consideration in Form 5 is whether the land can support paddy cultivation.

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 V K Shaji and Prajisha Krishnan v. The District Collector, Kozhikode and Others 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 FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 11795 OF 2024`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - **`1 V K SHAJI AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. CHATHUKUTTY, VELUTHEDATH KUZHIYIL, CHEVAYUR, NELLIKODE P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673016.`** - **`2 PRAJISHA KRISHNAN AGED 42 YEARS D/O. KRISHNAN, VELUTHEDATH KUZHIYIL, CHEVAYUR, NELLIKODE P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673016. BY ADVS. AMJATHA D.A. MUHASIN K.M. FARHANA K.H.`** ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673020`** - **`2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOZHIKODE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673020`** - **`3 THE TAHSILDAR KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, WAYANAD RD, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673020`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHEVAYUR VILLAGE OFFICE, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673012`** - **`5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER PUTHIYARA KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673004`** ``` WP(C) NO. 11795 OF 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 6THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033 ``` ``` BY ADV. ``` ``` SHRI. VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL- STANDING COUNSEL ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 11795 OF 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : - “ i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext P4 order and quash the same. - ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2[nd] 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. - iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 6[th] respondent to file a report before the 2[nd] 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. - [SIC] 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 2[nd] respondent rejecting the petitioner’s Form 5 application without considering the report from the Village Officer or obtaining a report from the KSREC with regard to the nature of the petitioner’s property as on 2008. Ext. P4 is the order rejecting the application. It is submitted that the reason stated in Ext. P4 order for rejecting the Form 5 application is unsustainable. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s ``` WP(C) NO. 11795 OF 2024 ``` ``` 4 ``` application was rejected without obtaining scientific report from the KSREC with respect to nature of the petitioner’s property as on 2008. Therefore, it is submitted that the Ext.P4 order passed by the 2[nd] respondent is unsustainable. 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 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 ``` 5 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 11795 OF 2024 ``` 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 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. ``` WP(C) NO. 11795 OF 2024 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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.P4 order is set aside. - 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 ``` WP(C) NO. 11795 OF 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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 need to Officer 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** S.M.K. ``` WP(C) NO. 11795 OF 2024 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.05.2023 ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.06.2022 ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P5COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ```