BY AD vs JACOB SEBASTIAN
Case Details
Smt.Preetha.K.K, Sr.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.27240 OF 2024 2 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 0.0405 hectares of land comprised in Block No.22, Re-Survey No.216/11 (216/7), 216/15 Erimayur- II Village of Alathur Taluk of Palakkad District. As the property was included in Data Bank prepared under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (herein after referred to as ‘Paddy Land Act’), despite the fact that the property stood reclaimed prior to the enactment of the same, the petitioner submitted an application in Form-5 for removing the property from the Data Bank.
2. However, the said application was initially rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P3 order, by way of a non- speaking order. The same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WPC No.35758/2023 which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment wherein, this Court set aside Ext.P3 and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter, after referring to the observations made by this Court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (4) KLT 270, Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (5) KLT 432, Joy v. Revenue WP(C) No.27240 OF 2024 3 Division Officer/Sub Collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433 and Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered, and Ext.P6 order was passed by the 1st respondent, by which the same was again rejected. This Writ petition is submitted in such circumstances.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein, he incorporated the averments to justify the stand taken by him in Ext.P6 order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleader, I find that Ext.P6 order was passed not in tune with the directions of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, due to the following reasons:-
5. First of all, the Ext.P6 order was passed without conducting an enquiry by the 1st respondent on his own, but instead, simply accepted the report of the Agricultural Officer. In Muraleedharan Nair’s case,(supra), this Court specifically observed that, dismissal of the application simply stating that the LLMC has recommended to reject the application is not proper. It is the duty of the Revenue Divisional officer to independently assess the nature of the land. In fact, in the Ext.P4 judgment, while setting aside the WP(C) No.27240 OF 2024 4 Ext.P3 order, which was passed by the 1st respondent during the 1st round of litigation, specific reference of the observations made in the Muraleedharan Nair's case was there and the direction was to consider the same in the light of the said decision. However, the same is not seen complied with in Ext.P6 order.
6. Moreover, the most crucial aspect that is necessary to consider for disposing of an application in Form-5 is whether the property concerned has the characteristics and features as specified in the definition of paddy land made in Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act. As per the said provisions, in order to treat a property as a paddy land, the same has to be a property where, paddy cultivation is being conducted at least once in a year or the property is fit for paddy cultivation and left uncultivated and fallow.
7. In this case, it is not the case of the respondents that the property was being cultivated with paddy at least once in a year. Therefore, necessarily, the 1st respondent was under an obligation to conduct and enquiry whether the property was fit for paddy cultivation. In Ext.P6, no such exercise is carried out and instead, an order was passed simply accepting the report of the Agriculture Officer which WP(C) No.27240 OF 2024 5 apparently does not contain an answer to the question as to whether the property is fit for paddy cultivation. In such circumstances, Ext.P6 order cannot be treated as the one passed in compliance with the statutory requirement contained in the Paddy land Act and also in tune with observations made by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. Therefore interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of Ext.P6, with a direction to the 1st respondent or the authorized officer under Section 2(xvA) of the Paddy Land Act to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner and pass orders on the same in light of the observations made by this Court in this judgment and also in Ext. P4. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE SM/1803 WP(C) No.27240 OF 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27240/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 Exhibit-P2 Exhibit-P3 Exhibit-P4 Exhibit-P5 Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 04.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERIMAYUR-II VILLAGE. A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER’S PLOT AND THE ADJOINING PLOTS ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 04.03.2021. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RDOPKD/714/2022- J2 DATED 25.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 35758 OF 2023 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT. A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT OF THE PLOT DATED 14.02.2024. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2808/2023-J2 DATED 14.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE
Smt.Preetha.K.K, Sr.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.27240 OF 2024 2 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 0.0405 hectares of land comprised in Block No.22, Re-Survey No.216/11 (216/7), 216/15 Erimayur- II Village of Alathur Taluk of Palakkad District. As the property was included in Data Bank prepared under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (herein after referred to as ‘Paddy Land Act’), despite the fact that the property stood reclaimed prior to the enactment of the same, the petitioner submitted an application in Form-5 for removing the property from the Data Bank.
2. However, the said application was initially rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P3 order, by way of a non- speaking order. The same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WPC No.35758/2023 which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment wherein, this Court set aside Ext.P3 and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter, after referring to the observations made by this Court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (4) KLT 270, Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (5) KLT 432, Joy v. Revenue WP(C) No.27240 OF 2024 3 Division Officer/Sub Collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433 and Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered, and Ext.P6 order was passed by the 1st respondent, by which the same was again rejected. This Writ petition is submitted in such circumstances.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein, he incorporated the averments to justify the stand taken by him in Ext.P6 order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleader, I find that Ext.P6 order was passed not in tune with the directions of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, due to the following reasons:-
5. First of all, the Ext.P6 order was passed without conducting an enquiry by the 1st respondent on his own, but instead, simply accepted the report of the Agricultural Officer. In Muraleedharan Nair’s case,(supra), this Court specifically observed that, dismissal of the application simply stating that the LLMC has recommended to reject the application is not proper. It is the duty of the Revenue Divisional officer to independently assess the nature of the land. In fact, in the Ext.P4 judgment, while setting aside the WP(C) No.27240 OF 2024 4 Ext.P3 order, which was passed by the 1st respondent during the 1st round of litigation, specific reference of the observations made in the Muraleedharan Nair's case was there and the direction was to consider the same in the light of the said decision. However, the same is not seen complied with in Ext.P6 order.
6. Moreover, the most crucial aspect that is necessary to consider for disposing of an application in Form-5 is whether the property concerned has the characteristics and features as specified in the definition of paddy land made in Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act. As per the said provisions, in order to treat a property as a paddy land, the same has to be a property where, paddy cultivation is being conducted at least once in a year or the property is fit for paddy cultivation and left uncultivated and fallow.
7. In this case, it is not the case of the respondents that the property was being cultivated with paddy at least once in a year. Therefore, necessarily, the 1st respondent was under an obligation to conduct and enquiry whether the property was fit for paddy cultivation. In Ext.P6, no such exercise is carried out and instead, an order was passed simply accepting the report of the Agriculture Officer which WP(C) No.27240 OF 2024 5 apparently does not contain an answer to the question as to whether the property is fit for paddy cultivation. In such circumstances, Ext.P6 order cannot be treated as the one passed in compliance with the statutory requirement contained in the Paddy land Act and also in tune with observations made by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. Therefore interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of Ext.P6, with a direction to the 1st respondent or the authorized officer under Section 2(xvA) of the Paddy Land Act to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner and pass orders on the same in light of the observations made by this Court in this judgment and also in Ext. P4. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE SM/1803 WP(C) No.27240 OF 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27240/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 Exhibit-P2 Exhibit-P3 Exhibit-P4 Exhibit-P5 Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 04.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERIMAYUR-II VILLAGE. A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER’S PLOT AND THE ADJOINING PLOTS ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 04.03.2021. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RDOPKD/714/2022- J2 DATED 25.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 35758 OF 2023 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT. A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT OF THE PLOT DATED 14.02.2024. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2808/2023-J2 DATED 14.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE