SRI .MAJEED v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

23.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 2665 OF 2024 : 2 : JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P7 whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer.

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 15.24 Ares of land comprised in Sy.Nos.339/3-1 and 339/3-3 of Anakkara Village, Pattambi Taluk in Block No.7 of Palakkad District, by virtue of Ext.P1 document.

3. According to the petitioner, the said property will not come within the definition of paddy land or wetland as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter WP(C) NO. 2665 OF 2024 : 3 : referred to as 'the Act of 2008') and is dry land having coconut plantations. However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank as 'paddy land'. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P7 stating that the Agricultural Officer has reported that there are 20 coconut trees aged about 10 years and the land is surrounded by paddy fields and has been converted after 2008. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 contending, inter alia, that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act of 2008 and the WP(C) NO. 2665 OF 2024 : 4 : binding precedents of this Court. The petitioner also states that the land lying contiguous to this property belonging to the petitioner has been removed from the Data Bank by Ext.P5 order.

5. The relevant consideration for inclusion of the property as a paddy land or wetland is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act of 2008. On a perusal of Ext.P7, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Act of 2008, the 1st respondent/RDO has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank. This Court has held in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] that, the Revenue Divisional Officer must, WP(C) NO. 2665 OF 2024 : 5 : 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.

6. 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 WP(C) NO. 2665 OF 2024 : 6 : 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 Agricultural Officer alone will not be sufficient while taking a decision on an application under Form-5. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P7, with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P4 application in Form No.5 and take a decision in the matter after calling for the KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the report from the KSRSEC. It is made clear that the petitioner shall make necessary application before the Agricultural Officer for obtaining the KSRSEC WP(C) NO. 2665 OF 2024 : 7 : report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB Sd/- WP(C) NO. 2665 OF 2024 : 8 : PETITIONER EXHIBITS APPENDIX Exhibit P 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1372/2006 DATED 5.10.2006 Exhibit P 1 [ a ] A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1373/2006 DATED 5.10.2006 Exhibit P 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.12.2022 Exhibit P 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.1.2023 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT Exhibit P 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.1.2023 Exhibit P 4 [ a ] A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.7.2023 IN W.P [C ] NO 21331 OF 2023 Exhibit P 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, OTTAPPALAM DATED 13.10.2022 Exhibit P 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTIES Exhibit P 7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, OTTAPPALAM DATED 16.11.2023