Allowed

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

Kerala HC7 Nov 2023WP(C)/1794/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting her Form-5 application to remove agricultural land from the Paddy Land and Wetland Data Bank. The Court set aside the order, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to independently assess the land character using scientific data like KSRSEC reports before deciding.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order rejecting Form-5; direct Respondent to reconsider application after obtaining KSRSEC report and passing fresh order within three months.

Dr.Mary John Vs the Sub Collector/ Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.1794 of 2023 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶5

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

¶6

WP(C) NO. 1794 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

DR.MARY JOHN,W/O DR. JOHN AGED 83 YEARS,32B,VELLALA STREET, PONDICHERRY, 605 001. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 004, HEBRON APARTMENTS, 57,BENSON CROSS ROAD, JAYA MAHAL WARD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE-KARNATAKA-560 046, PIN - 560046

¶9

BY ADVS. ASOK KUMAR K.P. ALEXANDER K.C.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE SUB COLLECTOR/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RDO,CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR DISTRICT- PIN: 680 003., PIN - 680003

¶12

2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,THRISSUR THRISSUR, 680 020., PIN - 680020

¶13

3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AND AGRICULTURAL OFFICER THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-PIN: 680001, PIN - 680001

¶14

4 THE DIRECTOR THE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033, PIN - 695033

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.1794 of 2023 2

¶19

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶23

aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P8 order, whereby the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner

¶24

has been rejected solely relying on the report of

¶25

the LLMC and without an independent consideration

¶26

of the matter by the 1^st respondent.

¶27

The petitioner is the absolute owner in

¶28

possession of 68.49 Ares (169.23 cents) in Re-Sy

¶29

No.1818/31 and 1818/32 of Peringavu Village within the jurisdiction of Thrissur Corporation of which an extent of 64.64 Ares is situated in ReSy.No.1818/31 and 3.85 Ares in 1818/32.

¶30

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

¶31

State of Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394] has

¶32

held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as

¶33

per the provisions of the Act was to contain

¶34

details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland

¶35

W.P.(C) No.1794 of 2023 3

¶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 prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of

¶39

the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Division Officer/Sub Collector[2021 (1) KLT 433] it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude

¶40

a land from the data bank. This court in

¶41

Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of

¶42

Kerala[2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222] 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 if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials,

¶43

ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from

¶44

W.P.(C) No.1794 of 2023 4

¶45

KSRSEC. This court in Muraleedharan Nair v.

¶46

Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (4) KLT 270] has

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (5)

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(C) No.1794 of 2023 5

¶54

paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.

¶55

In spite of these categorical declaration

¶56

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

¶57

of the LLMC that not to remove the paddy land from the data bank.

¶58

In view of the above, Ext.P8 is set aside

¶59

with a consequential direction to the 1^st

¶60

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 order afresh in the Form-5 application within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the KSREC 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

¶61

W.P.(C) No.1794 of 2023 6

¶62

Rules, 2008. Petitioner will be free to file argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by her 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 this judgments cited (supra) and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by her and pass final orders in the matters as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶63

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶64

Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

¶65

¶66

W.P.(C) No.1794 of 2023 7

¶67

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1794/2023

¶68

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶69

Exhibit	P-1 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
Exhibit	P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13-07-2022
Exhibit	P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10- 08-2017
Exhibit	P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 11-08- 2017 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR
Exhibit	P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK FOR THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 02-02-2021
Exhibit	P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01- 07-2022
Exhibit	P-7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP (C) NO 27172/2022 DATED 31.08.2022
Exhibit	P-8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D8- 9712/2022 DATED 16.11.2022 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR , THRISSUR
Exhibit	P-9 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT
Exhibit	P-10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN JOY K.K. VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (2021 (1) KHC 540).
Exhibit	P-11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. MUMBAI AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS [ 2014 (1) KHC 685]

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Mary John v. the Sub Collector/ 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

Ammath Vs Revenue Divisional Officer