Vineetha S Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Sub Collector Kozhikode Collectorate; Agricultural Officer Kakodi Grama Panchayat; Village Officer Kakodi

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 3RD MAGHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 260 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER/S:** VINEETHA S NAIR AGED 49 YEARS NIRMALYAM, EAST HILL CALICUT, PIN - 673005 BY ADVS. SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN M.R.SABU LAKSHMI RAMADAS APARNA RAJAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & SUB COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 672020 - 2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KAKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE BALUSSERY ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611 - 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT.DEVISREE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(c) No. 260 of 2024 2 ## **J UDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order whereby Form-5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer solely relying on the report of the Village Officer. 2. The petitioner states that she is the absolute owner in possession of an extent of 8.0868 ares of land in Sy. No. 135/11 (135/1 C) in Kakkodi Village, Kozhikode Taluk, Kozhikode District obtained as per Ext. P1 gift deed. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property is a garden land and will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wetland as defined under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act'). However, the land has been included in Ext. P2 data bank as converted land. 3 W.P.(c) No. 260 of 2024 Being a converted land, it comes within the ambit of unnotified land. However, as an abundant caution, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application in Form 5 of Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext. P5. In Ext. P5, the Revenue Divisional Officer has referred to the report of the Village Officer wherein it is stated that there is no building on the subject land and there is 1 coconut tree, approximately 10 years old and the exclusion of the land from the data bank would affect the environment and the cultivation in the nearby land. It is also reported that the land was filled after the Act came into force and therefore, the land should be retained in the data bank. Solely relying on the said report of the Village Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected 4 W.P.(c) No. 260 of 2024 Ext. P3 application. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 contending, _inter alia,_ that the same is vitiated by non-application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act and the binding precedents of this Court. It is contended that no report has been called for from the Agricultural officer and a report was called for from the Village Officer who has no role in the scheme of things. 4. Heard Sri. Sreedhar Ravindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Devisree, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wet land is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act. On a perusal of Ext.P5, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, the Revenue 5 W.P.(c) No. 260 of 2024 Divisional Officer has relied solely upon the report of the Village Officer to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. 6. This Court has held in the decision in **Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591]** that, the Revenue Divisional Officer must, while considering an application for removal of a property from the Data Bank consider the question whether the land was a paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. 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 W.P.(c) No. 260 of 2024 6 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. 7. Reliance upon the report of the Village Officer alone will not be sufficient while taking a decision on an application under Form 5. In the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in the above decisions, I find that Ext.P5 order cannot be sustained and I set aside the same, with a direction to the 1[st ] respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P3 application in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after obtaining a report from the KSRSEC at the expense 7 W.P.(c) No. 260 of 2024 of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report of the KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply to the Agricultural Officer concerned for KSRSEC report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The certified copy of this judgment together with the copy of the writ petition shall be submitted to the respondents 1 and 2 within two weeks. Other contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition are left open. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. **Sd/-** al/-+. **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** W.P.(c) No. 260 of 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 260/2024** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED 26.05.1998 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER TITLE TO THE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF AN ASSIGNMENT DEED EXECUTED IN HER FAVOUR BY HER LATE FATHER IN THE YEAR 1998 - Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND OF KAKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED NIL - Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 17.09.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER APPLICATION NO.233/2022/908017 - Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.04.2023 RECEIPT NO.KL11011203775/2023 - Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2023 NO. 5274/2023 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION DATED 12.12.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER APPLICATION NO.218/2023/908017