AMBIKA N v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD

5. 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 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 W.P.(c) No. 44254 of 2023 5 wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable.

6. Reliance upon the report of the Agricultural Officer alone will not be sufficient while taking a decision on an application under Form 5.

7. 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 2 nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application of the petitioner in Form-5 in accordance with law and take a decision in the matter after obtaining KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the report of the KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply before 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 writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE Sd/- W.P.(c) No. 44254 of 2023 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2435 OF 2013 OF SRO PALAKKAD DATED 23-08-2013 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO KL09050808231/2023 DATED 25-08-2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE NON-POSSESSION CERTIFICATE WITH NO. 1565/16 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD-III VILLAGE TO THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND SRI. JAYAPRAKASAN, DATED 13-06-2016 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NON-POSSESSION CERTIFICATE WITH NO. NIL ISSUED BY THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11-01-2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: 3003/2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07-04- 2023