Vimal Joseph v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the RDO Thrissur; Local Level Monitoring Committee of Kolazhy Gramapanchayath; Agricultural Officer Kolazhy; Village Officer Kolazhy; Tahsildar (Land Records), Thrissur

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN` ``` THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 20639 OF 2023` ## `PETITIONERS:` ``` VIMAL JOSEPH AGED 42 YEARS ``` ``` SON OF JOSEPH CHERIYAN, VELLAPANI HOUSE, PANGARAPPILLY DESOM AND VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, PANGARAPPILLY POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE., PIN - 680586 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SHIBIN K.F. SEBY JOSEPH ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THE OFFICE OF THE RDO, THE COLLECTORATE AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR., PIN - 680003` - `2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF KOLAZHY GRAMAPANCHAYATH ], REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AND AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLAZHY, PUTHANMADAM KUNNU, M.G. KAVU POST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680581` - `3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLAZHY, PUTHANMADAM KUNNU, M.G. KAVU POST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680581` - `4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KOLAZHY VILLAGE OFFICE, M.G. KAVU POST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680581` - `5 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR TALUK, TOWN HALL, WEST PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAV, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE., PIN - 680020` ``` BY SRI.B.S SYAMANTAK, GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.20639 of 2023 ``` 2 ## P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ## ------------------------------------ ## W.P.(C) No.20639 of 2023 ------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd ] day of February, 2024 ## JUDGMENT ## The above Writ Petition is filed with the following ## prayers: A. To issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate Writ and/or Order and set aside ExhibitP8 order of the 1[st] respondent and B. To pass a judgment declaring that the 2 Ares 02 Square Meter (5 Cents) of land comprised in ReSurvey No. 224/9 (Earlier Survey No.224/7) in Kolazhy Village in Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District is not 'Paddy Land' for the purpose of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and ought not to have been included in the Data Bank prepared under the said Act and C. To issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ Order and/or Direction commanding the respondents to remove the petitioner's 2 Ares 02 Square Meter (5 Cents) of land Re-Survey No. 224/9 ``` WP(C) NO.20639 of 2023 ``` 3 (Earlier Survey No.224/7) in Kolazhy Village in Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District from the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 within a time to be fixed by this Honourable Court . D. To dispense with the filing of translation the documents in vernacular language and E. To pass such other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit to pass in the interest of equity, justice and good conscious to the petitioner. **==> picture [37 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, by which the application submitted by the petitioner in Form - 5 application is rejected. According to the petitioner, Ext.P8 is not a speaking order and it is an order without considering the realities. Petitioner submitted that Ext.P8 is an order passed by the 1[st] respondent without any application of mind. Hence, this writ petition. ``` WP(C) NO.20639 of 2023 ``` 4 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court perused Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 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.P8 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, removal of the land from the Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question and ``` WP(C) NO.20639 of 2023 ``` 5 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 ``` WP(C) NO.20639 of 2023 ``` 6 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.P8 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 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. c) The petitioner is free to submit an ``` WP(C) NO.20639 of 2023 ``` 7 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. d) If an application for KSREC report is submitted and the same is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to pass orders in Form - 5 application only within three months from the date of receipt of the report from the KSREC. e) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1[st] respondent for compliance. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE smv ``` WP(C) NO.20639 of 2023 ``` 8 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20639/2023` ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit-P1A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 6336/2006 DATED 18-09-2006 ``` - `Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 27-07-2021` - `Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. TA(3) 8149/06 OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THRISSUR ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL` - `Exhibit-P4 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT NATURE OF THE PETITIONERS' LAND, DATED NIL` - `Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 25-03-2023 BEARING NO. G.O. (P)NO.45/2023/TAXES` - `Exhibit-P6 A ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE FOUR BOUNDARIES OF THE PETITIONERS' LAND, DATED NIL` - `Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.5 APPLICATION, DATED 09-08-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D112831/2021, DATED 13-06-2022, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER`