Vargheese T D v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the RDO, Collectorate, Ayyanthole Po, Thrissur; Tahsildar/Addl. Tahsildar (Land Records), Thrissur Taluk, Taluk Office, Chembookavu, Thrissur DT; Village Officer, Kolazhi Village, Pottore Post, Thrissur DT; Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) of Kolazhy Grama Panchayath, represented by its Convener (Agricultural Officer), Krishi Bhavan Kolazhi, Puthanmadamkunnu, Kolazhi Po, Thrissur DT; Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan - Kolazhi, Puthanmadamkunnu, Kolazhi Po; State of Kerala, represented by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram

## **W.P.(C) No.2694 of 2023 1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **TUESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 2694 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** VARGHESE T D ,AGED 62 YEARS S/O DEVASSY, THETTAYIL HOUSE, POTTORE POST, DESOM, VILLAGE, TIROOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680581 BY ADVS. SHOBY K.FRANCIS AGI SHOBY ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE RDO, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 2 2. TAHSILDAR/ADDL.TAHSILDAR[LAND RECORDS] THRISSUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, CHEMBOOKAVU PO, THRISSUR DT, PIN - 680020 3 3. VILLAGE OFFICER,KOLAZHI VILLAGE, POTTORE PO, THRISSUR DT, PIN - 680581 4 4. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE [LLMC] OF KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER [AGRICULTURAL OFFICER], KRISHI BHAVANKOLAZHI, PUTHANMADAMKUNNU, KOLAZHI PO, THRISSUR DT, PIN - 680010 5 5. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN- KOLAZHI, PUTHANMADAMKUNNU, KOLAZHI PO, THRISSUR DT, PIN - 680010 6 6. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 ## **W.P.(C) No.2694 of 2023 2** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEAD ON 31.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **W.P.(C) No.2694 of 2023 3** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** ---------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No.2694 of 2023** ------------------------------- **Dated this the 31[st] day of October, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P5 order, whereby the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the 1[st] respondent. 2. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of a total extent of 33.17 Ares (82 cents) of land comprised in re-survey Nos.102/1-2 & 102/3-2 of Kolazhi Village in Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District. The petitioner has got the said property as per the registered title deed Nos.1281/2015 & 4236/07 of SRO Thrissur. 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the land has been wrongly included in the data bank as Nilam and that the property is a garden land and large number of trees are standing therein and that paddy cultivation is not possible in the said property. It is also averred that the ## **W.P.(C) No.2694 of 2023 4** property is surrounded by residential houses and flats and tarred road is lying on one side of the property. In the said circumstances petitioner submitted Ext.P2, Form 5 application to remove the property from the data bank. Ext.P3 application was submitted by the petitioner to call for KSRSEC report regarding the said property. But no action has been taken by the respondent in this regard. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.31105/2022 and this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment directed the 1[st] respondent to consider and pass orders on Form 5 application and the 1[st] respondent has rejected the application as per Ext.P5 order. Petitioner submits that Ext.P5 order has been issued without considering any of the parameters to be considered while considering Form 5 application and further that the impugned order has been issued solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. 4. This Court in _**Lalu P.S. v. State of**_ _**Kerala[2020 (5) KHC 490]**_ has held that the data **W.P.(C) No.2694 of 2023 5** bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In _**Joy v. Revenue Division Officer/Sub Collector[2021 (1) KLT 433]**_ it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in _**Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala[2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222]**_ has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSREC. This court in _**Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (4) KLT 270]**_ has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from ## **W.P.(C) No.2694 of 2023 6** the Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to remove the land from Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer beingthe competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the land and come to a conclusion that removal of the land from Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question or in the 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. Further, this Court in _**Aparna**_ ## _**Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (5)**_ _**KLT 432]**_ has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. 5. In spite of these categorical declaration by this Court in a catena of judgment as cited ## **W.P.(C) No.2694 of 2023 7** above, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected solely relying on the decision of the LLMC not to remove the paddy land from the data bank. 6. A perusal of Ext.P5 would reveal that none of these aspects has been considered while rejecting the application of the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P5 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 1[st] respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner submits an application to the Agricultural Officer concerned seeking to obtain KSREC Report paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass order afresh in the Form-5 application within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the KSREC Report and take a final decision in the matter after considering the report as well as the relevant factors stipulated in Rule 4 (4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland ## **W.P.(C) No.2694 of 2023 8** Rules, 2008. Petitioner will be free to file argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him to substantiate his contentions and the 1[st] respondent RDO while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the findings by this Court in this judgments and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by him and pass final orders in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** pm ## **W.P.(C) No.2694 of 2023 9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2694/2023** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 18-2-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23-6-2022 IN FORM NO. 5 UNDER RULE 4(D) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES, 2008 TO EXCLUDE AN EXTENT OF 33.17 ARES [ 82 CENTS] OF LAND COMPRISED IN RE-SURVEY NO'S. 102/1-2 & 102/3-2 OF KOLAZHI VILLAGE Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31-8-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR KSRSEC REPORT Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP C NO. 31105/2022 DATED 29-9-2022 Exhibit P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FILE NO. 1161/2022 DATED 2-12-2022