Dismissed

Remadevi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2022WP(C)/22393/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the rejection of her application to remove cultivable land from the Data Bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Revenue Divisional Officer's decision to retain the land in the Data Bank based on the Local Level Monitoring Committee's report that the land

What the court decided

AI extract

Remadevi Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 22393 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

REMADEVI AGED 55 YEARS W/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNAPILLAI, RADHAKRISHNA VILASAM, EDATHARAPANA, ELAMADU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 533.

¶7

BY ADV ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 013.

¶11

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 305.

¶12

4 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 506.

¶13

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, ELAMADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 539.

¶14

W.P.(C) No.22393/2021

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ELAMADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR - AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ELAMADU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 533.

¶17

BY SMT. SURYA BINOY, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No.22393/2021

: 3 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.22393 of 2021

¶24

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2022

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶27

The petitioner is owner of 16 Cents of land in Survey No.28/1/2-2 in Block No.27 of Elamadu Village of Kollam District. The land is dry land and has been cultivated with tapioca and other vegetations for the last 50 years. There are standing Coconut, Anjili and Mango trees, 40 to 50 years old. The land is bound by Ayoor-Kollam PWD Road and a road leading to ITI. A tea shop is being run in the property for the last more than 25 years, contends the petitioner.

¶28

But, in the Revenue records, the property is described as paddy land. The land is included in the Data Bank, but indicates as 'under tapioca cultivation'. The

¶29

W.P.(C) No.22393/2021

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application in Form-5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 seeking to remove the land from the Data Bank. The Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) gave Ext.P6 report. Ext.P7 KSREC report states that the land is fallow land. The 3^rd respondent, without considering relevant facts and completely disregarding ground realities, rejected Ext.P5 application on 24.09.2021 as per Ext.P9 order, contends the petitioner.

¶32

The counsel for the petitioner argued that in Lalu v. State of Kerala [2020 (5) KLT 712] , this Court has held that the Data Bank to be prepared is the Data Bank of cultivable paddy land as on the date of coming into force of the Rules. In Salim C.K. and another v. State of Kerala and others [2017 (1) KHC 394], this Court has held that the Data Bank contemplated under the Act, 2008 was to contain details only of cultivable paddy lands. Therefore, inclusion of the petitioner’s land in the Data Bank is arbitrary and illegal.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.22393/2021

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

In Mather Nagar Residents Association and

¶36

another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others [2020 (2) KHC 94] , this Court has held that merely because the property is lying as fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to low lying nature of the land, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land as contemplated by the Act, 2008, contends the counsel for the petitioner. Exts.P8 and P9 cannot therefore be legally sustained, urged the counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

The 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer

¶38

resisted the writ petition filing a counter affidavit. Ext.P6 report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee found that the petitioner’s property is in a reclaimed state. During the preparation of Data Bank, land was found under tapioca cultivation. The coconut trees standing were only up to 12 years old and other trees were on the boundaries of the property. Eastern and Southern plots around the petitioner's land are wetlands. As per Section 2(xii) of the Act, 2008, even lands suitable for paddy cultivation but left fallow and

¶39

W.P.(C) No.22393/2021

¶40

: 6 :

¶41

capable of paddy cultivation, would fall under the definition of ''paddy land''. Therefore, the decision on the application of the petitioner is just and legal.

¶42

I have heard the learned counsel of the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶43

Ext.P5 Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 seeking to remove his land from Data Bank, stands rejected as per Ext.P9 order of the 3^rd respondent. In Ext.P9, the Revenue Divisional Officer, based on the report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, held that the coconut trees standing on the land are only 12 years old and the adjacent lands are wetlands. If the land of the petitioner is removed from the Data Bank and reclaimed, there is a likelihood of nearby wetlands also being reclaimed. On these premises, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the Form-5 application of the petitioner.

¶44

W.P.(C) No.22393/2021

¶45

: 7 :

¶46

The KSREC report marked as Ext.P7 would show that originally the land was paddy land as per the toposheet of 1967. By the year 2004, the land use pattern was changed into fallow / mixed plantation / vegetation and the trend continued thereafter, at least till the year 2013.

¶47

Ext.P8 is the report prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, based on local enquiries. The land was found as reclaimed paddy land, by the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The land is cultivated with tapioca, which is a short duration crop. The coconut trees found in the land were only up to 12 years old. Other trees were standing at the boundaries of the property. The Local Level Monitoring Committee found that if the petitioner's property is permitted to be removed from the Data Bank, there is a likelihood of nearby wetlands also being reclaimed.

¶48

The petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Lalu (supra) in which it is held that the Data Bank to be prepared is the Data Bank of cultivable paddy land as on the date of coming into force of the Rules. The petitioner also

¶49

W.P.(C) No.22393/2021

¶50

: 8 :

¶51

relied on the judgment in Salim C.K. and another (supra) to urge the point. But, it is to be noted that the Local Level Monitoring Committee at the time of preparation of Data Bank, found the petitioner's property suitable for paddy cultivation and hence included the land in the Data Bank. The fact that in the year 2004 the property was found of mixed vegetation in the KSREC report, would not be sufficient to hold that the property of the petitioner is unfit for paddy cultivation.

¶52

In view of the factual findings of the Local Level Monitoring Committee as regards the nature of the land, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order of the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. The writ petition therefore fails and it is consequently dismissed.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶55

aks/02.12.2022

¶56

W.P.(C) No.22393/2021

¶57

: 9 :

¶58

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22393/2021

¶59

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶60

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.KL
	02042606916/2021 DATED 08/07/2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE PHOTO SHOWING THE PRESENT NATURE OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT SHOWING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1068/2021 DATED 22/07/2021 ISSUED FROM THE
	OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.A 172/2015/KSREC IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SY.NO.28/1 IN BLOCK NO.27 OF ELAMADU VILLAGE.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.A.6782/2021/K.DIS. DATED 24/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶61

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶62

Exhibit R3 COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 30.04.2020 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.

Remadevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Remadevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Crosslite Infra Private Limited Vs Pravsha Projects Private Limited

Crystal Granites Limited Vs the Joint General Manager

G.K.Granites Vs the Joint General Manager

Suresh Thaloor Vs Kerala State Election Commission

Rajeev Joseph Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Binil M.K. Vs the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat