Partly allowed

Ammath v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC7 Nov 2023WP(C)/13022/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the rejection of a Form-5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The Court set aside the impugned order for its perfunctory nature, dismissing reliance solely on an Agricultural Officer's report. It directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application after obtaining a KSREC report and conducting an independent

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's Form-5 application (Ext.P6) is set aside. The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider the application within two months after receipt of a KS

Ammath Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 13022 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AMMATH AGED 82 YEARS S/O.MOIDU, PADIKKAPPOYIL, NARIPPATTA P.O., NARIPPATTA VILLAGE, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 506. BY ADV ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 101. 2 VILLAGE OFFICER NARIPPATTA VILLAGE OFFICE, CHEEKKONNU WEST, NARIPPATTA P.O., NARIPPATTA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE - 673 506. 3 AGRICULTURE OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KAYAKKODY, NARIPPATTA, KOZHIKODE - 673 508. 4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR THE NARIPPATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH UNDER THE CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KAYAKKODY, NARIPPATTA, KOZHIKODE - 673 508. 5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS HAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 033.

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C). No.13022 of 2022

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶16

- - - - W.P.(C) No.13022 of 2022

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, whereby the Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶20

The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of 10.82 Ares of land comprised in Re. Sy. No.108/2 (Relis Re. Sy. No.108/19), in Re. Sy. Block No.3 of Narippatta Village in Vadakara Taluk in Kozhikode District. The petitioner submits that the property is lying as a pacca garden land surrounded by residential properties. To substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced Ext.P4 series of photographs. The specific contention taken by the petitioner in the writ petition is that, two neibouring properties similarly situated that of the petitioner, which is owned by one Puthenpurayil Ashraf, has been removed from the data bank and there is no reason why the application submitted by the petitioner was alone rejected as per Ext.P6. Petitioner submits that in the title deed also the property is referred to as garden land.

¶21

Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

¶22

W.P.(C). No.13022 of 2022

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

A perusal of Ext.P6 would reveal that the application has been rejected solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer and there is no independent consideration of the issue by the 1^st respondent. It would further reveal that another reason stated in the report of the Agricultural Officer is that there are water channels (Neerchals) in the said property. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (4) KLT 270 has held that 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 and 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. It is also held that merely for the reason that there are “Neerchals” in the land by itself is not a ground to reject the Form-5 application, in the absence of further findings not only that removal of the land from Data Bank is likely to result in filling up of/blocking of “Neerchals” but also that filling up/blocking “Neerchals” is likely to affect paddy cultivation or subsistence of any wetland. This Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (5) KLT 432 has also held that the

¶25

W.P.(C). No.13022 of 2022

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

predominant factor for consideration should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. This Court in Joy v. Revenue Division Officer/Sub Collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433 has held that it is only the character and fitness of the land, as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land, and in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222 this Court has held 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 further held that if required, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall call for a the KSREC report to enter a proper conclusion of the matter.

¶28

In spite of these categorical declaration by this Court in a catena of judgments as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, not to remove the land from the data bank and the 1^st respondent has never adverted to the KSREC report or has conducted any site inspection.

¶29

In view of the above, Ext.P6 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider the

¶30

W.P.(C). No.13022 of 2022

¶31

: 5 :

¶32

Ext.P5 application in 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 order 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 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. Petitioner will be free to file an argument note incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him to substantiate his contentions and the 1^st respondent RDO while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the findings by this Court in those judgments cited (supra) and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by him.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶34

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶35

sm/

¶36

: 6 :

¶37

W.P.(C). No.13022 of 2022

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13022/2022

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.562/2015, DATED 21/3/2015, OF THE KAKKATTIL S.R.O. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF TH TAX RECEIPT DATED 15/9/2021 ISSUED FROM THE NARIPPATTA VILLAGE OFFICER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 5/11/2020 ISSUED FROM THE NARIPPATTA VILLAGE OFFICE. Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.5 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.F4-RDOVDK/290/2022 DATED 1/2/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Ammath v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ammath v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Rajamma Gopinath Vs Official Liquidator

M.P.Chandran Vs the Official Liquidator

Joby George, Vs State of Kerala

Moly Joy Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi

William Varghese Vs the District Collector

Dr.Mary John Vs the Sub Collector/ Revenue Divisional Officer