Vasanthakumar v. District Collector, Thrissur and Others

**W.P.(C) No.35874 of 2023 1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA,** **1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 35874 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** MR. VASANTHAKUMAR,AGED 70 YEARS S/O. CHENDRA AYYAPPAN CHENDRA HOUSE, ARANATTUKARA P O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680618 BY ADVS. S.LAKSHMY JAYANTHY C. S.AMINA U.RAVISANKAR ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR-, PIN - 680003 3 THE TAHSILDAR THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE, CHEMBUKKAVU, OPP. THRISSUR TOWN HALL THRISSUR -, PIN - 680020 4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KOORKKANCHERRY NADAPPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR-, PIN - 680007 5 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, WARD 43, KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR P.O., PIN - 680007 6 THE SECRETARY THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY, KOORKKANCHERRY ZONAL, ## **W.P.(C) No.35874 of 2023 2** THRISSUR -, PIN - 680027 7 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORY COMMITTEE CONVENED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOORKKANCHERRY, NADAPPUZHA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680007 8 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING ENVIRONMENT CENTRE 1 ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,, PIN - 695033 9 THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY KOORKKANCHERY ZONAL, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY., PIN - 680027 BY ADV SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **W.P.(C) No.35874 of 2023 3** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** ------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No.35874 of 2023** -------------------------------- **Dated this the 1[st] day of November, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P10 order, whereby Ext.P5 Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the 2[nd] respondent. 2. The petitioner is in ownership and possession of an extent of 2.83 Ares comprising of 2.02 ares comprised in Sy.No.296 part of Kanimangalam Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District by virtue of Settlement Deed No.206 part Kanimangalam Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District in possession after alienations covered by Deed No.3059 of 2012, SRO Ayyanthole. The petitioner assigned an extent of 1.21 Ares comprised in Sy.No.296 part in Kanimangalam Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District in favour of Mr.Suman by virtue of Sale Deed No.4767/2013, SRO Ayyanthole. ## **W.P.(C) No.35874 of 2023 4** 3. Petitioner submits that the said plot is located in a residential area and no agricultural activities were involved even prior to the acquisition of the properties by the petitioner's sister and the petitioner in the year 2012. Petitioner submits that the property acquired by the petitioner's sister having an extent of 2.83 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.296 P of Kanimangalam Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District covered by Exts.P1 and P2 deeds were classified as 'Nilam' as per the revenue records. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 application in form 5. Petitioner submits that a perusal of Ext.P10 order would reveal that the application has been rejected solely based on the report of the 7[th] respondent and that there is no independent consideration of the application by the 2[nd] respondent. 4. This Court in _**Salim C.K. and Another v.**_ _**State of Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394]**_ has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as ## **W.P.(C) No.35874 of 2023 5** per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in _**Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala[2020 (5) KHC 490]**_ has held that the data 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, ## **W.P.(C) No.35874 of 2023 6** 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 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 being the 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 ## **W.P.(C) No.35874 of 2023 7** 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 above, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected solely relying on the decision of the LLMC that not to remove the paddy land from the data bank. 6. In view of the above, Ext.P10 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 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 Ext.P7 Form-5 application within a period of two 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 ## **W.P.(C) No.35874 of 2023 8** relevant factors stipulated in Rule 4 (4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland 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 2[nd] respondent RDO while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the findings by this Court in the judgments cited (supra) and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by him and pass final orders within the time limit stated above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** pm ## **W.P.(C) No.35874 of 2023 9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35874/2023** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 3059 OF 2012 DATED 19.07.2012, SRO AYYANTHOLE - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 1531 OF 2021 DATED 17.08.2021, SRO AYYANTHOLE - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 4767/2013 DATED 13.11.2013, SRO AYYANTHOLE - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO. KL 08015602106/2023 DATED 08.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE NATURE AND LIE OF LAND - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PARTICULARS PREPARED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 02.06.2022 - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SEVENTH RESPONDENT - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 04.03.2023