The High Court set aside a writ petition discharged order rejecting a Form 5 application to exclude land from the Paddy Land Data Bank,
Ext.P5 order set aside; learned First Respondent directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application after obtaining KSRSEC report and conducting site inspection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 1865 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
T.K.SEETHARAMAN, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O T.S.KALYANARAMAN, AGED 46 YEARS, 1/191,
THRIKKUR MADHOM, KALYAN EXTENTION, POONKUNNAM P.O.,
THRISSUR 680 002., PIN - 680002
BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICEROFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 0032 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHUR P.O., THRISSUR, 680 014.3 THE VILLAGE OFFICERMARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, MARATHAKKARA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680 306
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.1865 of 2023
2
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
W.P (C) No. 1865 of 2023
................................................................. Dated this the 21st day of November, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P5 order whereby Ext.P3 application in Form 5 submitted by him has been rejected by the 1st respondent.
Others, 2017 (1) KHC 394 has held that the Data Bank that was
WP(C) No.1865 of 2023
3
contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala, 2020 (5) 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 the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Divisional 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 a land from the data bank. This court in
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of 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, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. This court in Muraleedharan Nair v. 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 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
WP(C) No.1865 of 2023
4
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.
has been rejected solely relying on the decision of the Agricultural Officer, not to remove the land from the data bank.
Accordingly Ext.P5 order is set aside with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the Ext.P3 application in Form 5 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, after calling for a KSRSEC report which shall be at the expense of the petitioner and after conducting a site inspection. Petitioner will be free to submit his notes of argument which shall also be duly considered by the 1st respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above. A
WP(C) No.1865 of 2023
5
decision on Ext.P3 shall be taken within an outer limit of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
With the abovesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE
cks
WP(C) No.1865 of 2023
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1865/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2194 OF 2012
OF S.R.O.KUTTANELLUR DATED 31-05-2012.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 13-01-2021.
Exhibit P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
05-04-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SEEKING TO
EXCLUDE THE PROPERTY FROM THE DATA
BANK
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-09-
2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.30771 OF 2022 .
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D7-6213/2021
DATED 29-11-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer independently assessed the land status rather than relying solely on the Local Level Monitoring Committee report?
Whether the rejection of Form 5 application requires a KSRSEC report and site inspection before deciding on land exclusion from the data bank?
Whether the impugned order including nilam or purayidam land as paddy land in the data bank was sustainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and OthersRelied on¶27
Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others, 2017 (1) KHC 394
Lalu P.S. v. State of KeralaRelied on¶31
Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala, 2020 (5) KHC 490
Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub CollectorRelied on¶31
Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of KeralaRelied on¶32
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional OfficerRelied on¶32
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (4) KLT 270
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional OfficerRelied on¶35
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (5) KLT 432
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.K.SEETHARAMAN
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICER
VIJU ABRAHAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court