Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed; Ext P4 order set aside...

WP(C) Nos. 20741/2022, 20806/2022 & 20197/2022, Kerala High Court

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 20741/2022, 20806/2022 & 20197/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • VIJU ABRAHAM
Judgment Date
2023-11-06
Court Decision / Holding
Ext P4 order is set aside; the 1st respondent to reconsider Form-5 applications after calling for a KSRSEC report at petitioners' cost and conducting a site inspection; a decision on Form-5 to be taken within three months from receipt of the KSRSEC report.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions disposed; Ext P4 order set aside; remand to the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Form-5 applications after obtaining KSRSEC report and site inspection; decision to be made within three months of receipt of the report.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ali
  • Jameela Ali
  • Shahana P.A
  • Mohammed Jabir
  • Safeena P.H
  • Asmabi
  • Lahikkath P.A
  • Salihabi Siyas
  • Ansari

Respondents

  • The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the RDO, Civil Station, Ayyanthole, Thrissur-680003
  • The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Koorkenchery (PO), Thrissur-680007

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Binojy Vasudevan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Riyal Devassy
  • • Syamanthak B.S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Three writ petitions under WP(C) Nos. 20741/2022, 20806/2022 and 20197/2022, heard together, challenge Ext P4 orders rejecting Form-5 applications to remove lands from the Data Bank under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioners own small dry-land parcels in Chiyyaram Village, Thrissur District, and contend that the LLMC’s decision not to remove their lands from the Data Bank is based solely on LLMC reports, without independent assessment by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The court surveys the Act’s framework, noting prior decisions that data bank details must concern cultivable paddy land and wetlands as of 2008, and that the land’s character as of 2008 governs inclusion or exclusion. It cites Salim C.K., Lalu P.S., Joy, Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (OnLine), Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer to emphasize that Form-5 decisions require independent evaluation rather than automatic reliance on LLMC. The court holds that the RDO must independently assess status, consider satellite data if necessary, and call for a KSRSEC report, with costs to petitioners, plus a site inspection. Ext P4 is set aside and the matter is remitted for reconsideration within a three-month outer limit after receipt of the KSRSEC report.

Provisions of Law Cited

The Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Ext P4 proceedings rejecting Form-5 are vitiated by the LLMC's unexamined report; the RDO must independently assess Form-5 applications rather than mechanically rely on LLMC findings. They argue the land was not paddy land or wetland as on the 2008 data bank date and rely on decisions in Salim C.K. and Others v. State of Kerala; Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala; Joy v. RDO; Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala; Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO; Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO to emphasize that the data bank should reflect 2008 status, and if materials are lacking, the RDO should obtain scientific data (KSRSEC) and conduct site inspection. They submit that removal from Data Bank should be considered with firm evidence that cultivation is feasible and that such removal will not affect wetlands. They offer to bear KSRSEC costs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue the LLMC report and the decision not to remove land from the Data Bank should stand; the Data Bank is a policy instrument to conserve paddy land and wetlands; Form-5 is to be considered on the LLMC's recommendations; independent re-evaluation may delay protection of land; reliance on LLMC and existing records is appropriate; they contend that KSRSEC data should not unconditionally reverse LLMC's decision and that the LLMC's minutes reflect the status of the land.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others2017 (1) KHC 394PositiveCited as authority that data bank should contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetlands within the LLMC's jurisdiction.
Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala2020 (5) KHC 490PositiveData bank under the Act must reflect cultivable paddy land existing as on 24.12.2008.
Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector2021 (1) KLT 433PositiveWhether land is included/excluded depends on its character on 12.08.2008.
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222PositiveIf material is lacking, the RDO should rely on scientific data including satellite photographs from KSRSEC.
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer2023 (4) KLT 270PositiveRDO must independently assess status; cannot rely solely on LLMC's decision to not remove land.
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer2023 (5) KLT 432PositivePredominant factor is whether land to be excluded from Data Bank is land where paddy cultivation is feasible.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against WP(C) Nos. 20741/2022, 20806/2022 & 20197/2022, Kerala High Court and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM`** ## **`MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 20741 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - `1 ALI, AGED 73 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, POKKAKKILLATH HOUSE, KAITHAKKAL SOUTH, THALIKKULAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 569.` - `ADDL.P2 JAMEELA ALI W/O.ALI, AGED 66 YEARS, POKKAKKAILATH HOUSE, KAITHAKKAL SOUTH, THALIKKULAM (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT-680569 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. P2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN WP(C)` - `ADDL.P3 SHAHANA P.A D/O.ALI, AGED 45 YEARS, POKKAKKAILATH HOUSE, KAITHAKKAL SOUTH, THALIKKULAM (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT-680569 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. P3 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN WP(C)` - `ADDL.P4 MOHAMMED JABIR S/O. ALI, AGED 44 YEARS, POKKAKKAILATH HOUSE, KAITHAKKAL SOUTH, THALIKKULAM (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT680569 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. P4 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN WP(C)` - `ADDL.P5 SAFEENA P.H D/O.ALI, AGED 41 YEARS, POKKAKKAILATH HOUSE, KAITHAKKAL SOUTH, THALIKKULAM (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT -680569 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. P5 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN WP(C)` - `ADDL.P6 ASMABI D/O.ALI, AGED 38 YEARS, POKKAKKAILATH HOUSE, KAITHAKKAL SOUTH, THALIKKULAM (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT-680569 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. P6 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN WP(C)` - `ADDL.P7 LAHIKKATH P.A S/O.ALI, AGED 35 YEARS, POKKAKKAILATH HOUSE, KAITHAKKAL SOUTH, THALIKKULAM (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT-680569 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. P7AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN WP(C)` ``` ADDL.P8SALIHABI SIYAS D/O.ALI, AGED 30 YEARS, POKKAKKAILATH HOUSE, KAITHAKKAL SOUTH, THALIKKULAM (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT -680569 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. P8 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN WP(C) BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN ``` WP(C) Nos. 20741, 20806 & 20197 of 2022 : 2 : ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.` - `2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOORKENCHERY (PO), THRISSUR-680 007. BY G.P., SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) Nos.20197/2022 & 20806/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) Nos. 20741, 20806 & 20197 of 2022 : 3 : ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM`** ``` MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 20197 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ANSARI AGED 69 YEARS S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, KOLPARAMBIL HOUSE, PORATHISSERY (PO), MOORKKANAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 711. BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 003.` - `2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KOORKKANCHERRY (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 007.` - `3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, CHIYYARAM (PO),THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 026.` ``` GP – RIYAL DEVASSY ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) Nos.20741/2022 & 20806/22 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) Nos. 20741, 20806 & 20197 of 2022 : 4 : ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM`** ``` MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 20806 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` IBRAHIM AGED 70 YEARS S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, KOLPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOORKKANAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680711. BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003. 2THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOORKENCHERY (PO), THRISSUR-680007. GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S. ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C) Nos. 20741/2022 & 20197/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) Nos. 20741, 20806 & 20197 of 2022 : 5 : ## **VIJU ABRAHAM , J.** ## **=========================== WP(C) Nos. 20741, 20806 & 20197 of 2022 ============================ Dated this the 6[th] day of November, 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** In all these three cases the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioners have been rejected by Ext P4 order, wherein I find that the reason stated is similar in all the cases. Therefore, these cases are heard and disposed of together. 2. In WP(C) No.20741/2022, petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 0.0405 hector (4 ares and 5 sq.mtr) of dry land situated in Sy.No. 150/2-10 of Chiyaram Village in Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District, purchased through document No.4544/1986 of SRO Thrissur. In WP(C) No.20806/2022, petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 2 ares and 2 sq.meter of dry land situated in Sy.No. 150/2-7 of Chiyaram Village in Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District, purchased through document No.1269/1995 of SRO Thrissur. In WP(C) No.20197/2022, petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 0.0202 hectors of dry land situated in Sy.No. 150/2-8 of Chiyaram Village in Thrissur Taluk, purchased through document No.2082/1995 of SRO Thrissur. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. This Court in _**Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [2017 (1) KHC 394]**_ has held that the Data WP(C) Nos. 20741, 20806 & 20197 of 2022 : 6 : Bank that was contemplated as 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 Divisional 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 KSRSEC. 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, WP(C) Nos. 20741, 20806 & 20197 of 2022 : 7 : 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 judgments as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected solely relying on the decision of the LLMC, not to remove the land from the data bank. 6. A perusal of Ext P4 would reveal that the application has been rejected solely relying on the report of the LLMC. There is no independent consideration by the 1[st] respondent on the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioners in these writ petitions. Accordingly Ext.P4 order is set aside with a consequential direction to the 1[st] respondent to reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, after calling for a KSRSEC report which shall be at the expense of the petitioners and after conducting WP(C) Nos. 20741, 20806 & 20197 of 2022 : 8 : a site inspection. Petitioners will be free to submit their notes of argument which shall also be duly considered by the 1[st] respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above. After obtaining KSRSEC report a decision on the application in Form 5 shall be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the said report. **Sd/VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** sbk/- WP(C) Nos. 20741, 20806 & 20197 of 2022 : 9 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20197/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2081 OF 1995 DATED 08/03/1995 OF S.R.O., THRISSUR. Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 15/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.RDOTSR/1450/2022-D8 DATED 14/06/2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` WP(C) Nos. 20741, 20806 & 20197 of 2022 : 10 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20806/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT BEARING NO.1269/1995 DATED 8.3.1995 OF S.R.O., THRISSUR. Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHIYARAM VILLAGE. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 15.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHIYARAM VILLAGE. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.RDOTSR/1447/2022-D8 DATED 14.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B3-76365/2012 DATED 22.4.2013. ``` WP(C) Nos. 20741, 20806 & 20197 of 2022 : 11 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20741/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT BEARING NO.4544/1986 DATED 23.12.1986 OF SRO, THRISSUR. Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 04.05.2002 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHIYARAM VILLAGE. Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 09.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHIYARAM VILLAGE. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RDOTSR/1312/2022-D8 DATED 26.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO,B3-76365/2012 DATED 22.04.2013. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(a)A True copy of the relevant pages of the Data Bank Notification No.DW4/1640/11 dated 22.01.2021 of Thrissur Municipal Corporation Exhibit R2(b)A true copy of the tax receipt No.KL08015701956/2021 dated 22.06.2021 Exhibit R2(c)A true copy of the Report of Agricultural Officer, Koorkanchery,Thrissur. Exhibit R2(e)A true copy of the LLMC Minutes dated 12.07.2022 Exhibit R2(d)A true copy of the LLMC Minutes dated 22.03.2022 ```