Vanju Kamal v. State of Kerala and Others (WP(C) No. 6696 of 2024)

WP(C) NO. 6696 OF 2024 1 ## **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. 6696 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **VANJU KAMAL AGED 42 YEARS S/O. KAMALASANAN, MANJU VILLA, KADAKKAL, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 691536** **BY ADV ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR**| ||**COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013**| |**3**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER**| ||**OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR,**| ||**KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 691305**| |**4**|**THE TAHSILDAR**| ||**TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -**| ||**691506**| |**5**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER**| ||**VILLAGE OFFICE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -**| ||**691536**| WP(C) NO. 6696 OF 2024 2 **6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KADAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR-AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KADAKKAL. P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 691534** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT.DEVI SHRI.R, 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. 6696 OF 2024 3 # **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** ## **--------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 6696 of 2024** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of March, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : i. “call for the records leading to Exhibit-P3 from the 6[th] respondent and the decision taken by the 3rd respondent - rejecting Exhibit-P2 – application submitted by the petitioner which can be seen from Exhibit-P5, to quash the same by the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order; ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 3rd respondent to reconsider Exhibit-P2 - application submitted by the petitioner in Form No.5 for removing the land owned by the petitioner in Re. Sy. No.138/11 in Block No. 48 of Kadakkal Village from the Data Bank since the nature of the land as on the notified date of Act 28 of 2008 is neither paddy land nor wet land and not feasible for paddy cultivation; iii. declare that the property owned by the petitioner in Re.Sy.No.138/11 in Block No. 48 of Kadakkal Village is liable to be removed from the Data Bank prepared by the 6[th] WP(C) NO. 6696 OF 2024 4 respondent and notified in respect of Kadakkal Grama Panchayat; iv. allow such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court find deem fit to in the nature and circumstances of the case with the cost of the petitioner; and v. dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents.”[sic] 2. The petitioner submitted application in Form 5 as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act, 2008') in respect of 10 ares of land in Re.Sy No.138/11 in Block No. 48 of Kadakkal Village to the 6[th] respondent. The land owned by the petitioner is dry land even at the time of notification of Act 28 of 2008 is the submission. The 6[th] respondent prepared Data Bank by including the land owned by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner submitted Form 5 application. But the 3[rd] respondent without any independent assessment blindly accepted the report of the 6[th] respondent and rejected the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5 is the submission. Ext.P5 is the document showing that Form 5 application is rejected. Aggrieved by the same, this writ WP(C) NO. 6696 OF 2024 5 petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. 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. 6. In **Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2023 (5) KLT 432], this Court observed that the WP(C) NO. 6696 OF 2024 6 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. Considering the contentions of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is not a speaking order. The contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 3[rd] respondent while passing WP(C) NO. 6696 OF 2024 7 the order is the grievance. 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) The order rejecting Ext.P2 application as evident by Ext.P5 is set aside. b) The 3[rd] 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 3[rd] respondent. d) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this WP(C) NO. 6696 OF 2024 8 judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 3[rd] respondent for compliance. **sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS WP(C) NO. 6696 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6696/2024** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. KL02042205218 / 2023 DATED 04.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 DATED 07.05.2022** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF EXHIBIT-P2 APPLICATION DATED 25/6/2022** **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 25/1/2024** **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15/2/2024**