VARGHESE ERALIL v. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR

Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 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.P5 order. In Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court observed that, WP(C) NO.10461 OF 2024 6 it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that Local Level Monitoring Committee 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 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 WP(C) NO.10461 OF 2024 7 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 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 1st respondent while WP(C) NO.10461 OF 2024 8 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: i) ii) Ext.P5 order is set aside. The 1st 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. iii) The petitioner is free to submit an application before the appropriate authority for getting the KSREC report within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this WP(C) NO.10461 OF 2024 9 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 1st respondent. If fresh KSREC report is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to consider the Form 5 application only within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report from the KSREC. iv) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 1st respondent for compliance. v) While deciding the matter, the 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P3 and also WP(C) NO.10461 OF 2024 10 the dictum laid down in Adani Infrastructures and Developers Pvt.Ltd. v. State Kerala [2014 (1) KLT 774], Lalu v. State of Kerala [2020(5) KLT 712], Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. state of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 561], Mureleedharan Nair R v. RDO [2023 (4) KHC 524], Joy v. Revenue Divisional officer / Sub collector [2021 (1) KLT 433] and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO [2023 (6) KHC 83]. Sd/- DM P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE WP(C) NO.10461 OF 2024 11 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10461/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.12.2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 23.02.2012 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K16/11931/2022 DATED 02.03.2023 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE