Allowed

Leela, v. the Sub Collector, Tirur

Kerala HC23 Nov 2023WP(C)/12678/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order rejecting the petitioner's Form-5 application to remove land from the paddy land data bank. It directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to independently reconsider the application after obtaining a KSRSEC report and conducting a site inspection.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order rejecting the Form-5 application and directed the first respondent to reconsider the application after obtaining a KSRSEC report and conducting a site inspection.

Leela, Vs the Sub Collector, Tirur — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12678 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LEELA,

¶8

AGED 63 YEARS W/O. SOMA SUNDARAM, NEDUMKANHIRATHINGAL HOUSE, SOUTH ANNARA, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676101

¶9

BY ADV C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE SUB COLLECTOR, TIRUR, TIRUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101

¶12

2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, TAVANUR, TAVANUR AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, TAVANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679573

¶13

3 THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI TALUK OFFICE, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679577

¶14

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TAVANUR VILLAGE OFFICE, TAVANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679573

¶15

5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, TAVANUR AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, TAVANUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 679573, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No.12678 of 2023 2

¶20

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶21

¶22

W.P.(C) No.12678 of 2023

¶23

Dated this the 23^rd day of of November, 2023

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶26

aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P3 order, whereby Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has

¶27

been rejected by the 1^st respondent relying on the

¶28

report of the Agricultural Officer and contending that there is no independent consideration by the 1^st respondent.

¶29

The petitioner submits that a perusal of

¶30

Ext.P3 would reveal that as per the report of the Agricultural Officer there are coconut trees aged 10 to 15 years and also a residential house in the

¶31

said property, and property on the back side of the property of the petitioner is now lying as a 'paramba'.

¶32

This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v.

¶33

State of Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394] has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain

¶34

W.P.(C) No.12678 of 2023 3

¶35

details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland

¶36

within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned.

¶37

Further in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala[2020 (5)

¶38

KHC 490] has held that the data bank to be

¶39

prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e.,

¶40

24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Divisional

¶41

Officer/Sub Collector[2021 (1) KLT 433] it was

¶42

held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to

¶43

include or exclude a land from the data bank. This

¶44

court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala[2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222] has held

¶45

that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from

¶46

W.P.(C) No.12678 of 2023 4

¶47

KSRSEC. This court in Muraleedharan Nair v.

¶48

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

¶49

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 wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. Further, this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (5) KLT 432] has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.

¶50

W.P.(C) No.12678 of 2023 5

¶51

In spite of these categorical declaration

¶52

by this Court in a catena of judgments as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected solely relying on the decision of the LLMC that not to remove the paddy land from the data bank.

¶53

In view of the above, Ext.P3 order is set

¶54

aside with a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner submits an application to the Agricultural Officer concerned seeking to obtain KSRSEC Report, paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass an order

¶55

afresh in the Form-5 application within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the KSRSEC Report and take a final decision in the matter shall be taken after considering the report as well as the relevant factors stipulated in Rule 4 (4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and after conducting a

¶56

site inspection. Petitioner will be free to file

¶57

W.P.(C) No.12678 of 2023 6

¶58

argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by her to substantiate her contentions and the 1^st respondent RDO while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the findings of this Court in the judgments cited (supra) and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by her.

¶59

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶60

Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶61

¶62

W.P.(C) No.12678 of 2023 7

¶63

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12678/2023

¶64

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶65

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY TAVANUR VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 28.3.2023 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.3.2023

Leela, v. the Sub Collector, Tirur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leela, v. the Sub Collector, Tirur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moideen K Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Nafeesa .K Vs State of Kerala

Jamal , Vs the Revenue Devisional Officer

Akhil Shaji, Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Himavarsha Kuries Private Limited (in Liquidation) Vs Shajahan K.A.

Dinesh Thekkethil Pavithran Vs State of Kerala