Disposed

Jayasree P, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC24 Jul 2023WP(C)/23420/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging the rejection of an application to remove land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the matter after obtaining a report from the Kerala Soil & Water Conservation Research and Education Centre (KSREC).

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider the Form-5 application taking into account the KSREC report within two months of its receipt.

Jayasree P, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23420 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 JAYASREE P., AGED 48 YEARS, D/O SREEDHARAN NAIR (LATE), NEELAMPILLY HOUSE, MANITHARA, AVANUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680541

¶8

2 JALAJA P., AGED 52 YEARS, D/O SREEDHARAN NAIR (LATE), NEELAMPILLY HOUSE, MANITHARA, AVANUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680541

¶9

BY ADV ASOK KUMAR K.P.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRST FLOOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

¶12

2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, AVANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AVANUR KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR, PIN - 680541

¶13

3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, AVANUR, AVANUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680541

¶14

BY SMT. DEEPA N.- SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.23420 of 2023

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Dated this the 24^th day of July, 2023

¶20

The petitioners, who are owners of 0.2224

¶21

Hectare of property in Thangalur Village, are challenging Ext.P8 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur, whereby the petitioners' request to remove the petitioners' land from Data Bank stands rejected.

¶22

The petitioners own 0.2224 Hectare of property comprised in Re-Survey Nos.542/1-1 and 542/1-2, Block No.57 of Thangalur Village, Thrissur Taluk of Thrissur District. According to the petitioners, the land stood converted prior to the year 2008 when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 was enacted. The land is presently in the nature of 'purayidom'.

¶23

However, when a Data Bank of Paddy Land and Wetland was constituted under Section 5(4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the petitioners' land was included in the Data Bank. The

¶24

W.P.(C) No.23420 of 2023

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

petitioners wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioners submitted Ext.P7 application in Form-5, invoking Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

¶27

The petitioners' Form-5 application has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P8 order. The petitioners challenge Ext.P8 order. According to the petitioners, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the petitioners' application solely based on LLMC report. The petitioners submit that it is evident from the order that the Revenue Divisional Officer has neither made a Site inspection nor he has applied his mind while passing the impugned order.

¶28

The property of the petitioners lie in the nature of 'purayidom'. Had the Revenue Divisional Officer harboured any doubt in this regard, he should have ordered to obtain scientific data as provided under Rule 4(4F) of the Rules, 2008 to ascertain the nature of the land as it stood in the year 2008, contended the petitioners. If the order of the

¶29

W.P.(C) No.23420 of 2023

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

Revenue Divisional Officer is allowed to stand, it will interfere with the constitutional right of the petitioners to freely enjoy the land, which in turn will be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, urged the petitioners.

¶32

Senior Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Senior Government Pleader denied all the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition. When the petitioners submitted Form-5 application to remove land from Data Bank, the Revenue Divisional Officer sought a report from the Agricultural Officer, who is the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee.

¶33

Based on the findings of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the Agricultural Officer submitted a Report on 03.09.2022. The said Report was made on the basis of a Site inspection. The report specifically recommended that the land is not to be removed from the Data Bank as it would defeat the very purpose of the Act, 2008. The petitioners have not advanced any legal reason to

¶34

W.P.(C) No.23420 of 2023

¶35

: 5 :

¶36

unsettle the decision taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Government Pleader insisted.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶39

The petitioners own 0.2224 Hectare of property comprised in Re-Survey Nos.542/1-1 and 542/1-2, Block No.57 of Thangalur Village, Thrissur Taluk of Thrissur District. The petitioners' land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioners wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioners submitted Ext.P7 application in Form-5.

¶40

The Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the Form-5 application as per Ext.P8 order. The stated reason for rejecting the petitioner’s Form-5 application is that the LLMC has decided not to recommend removal of the petitioner’s land from the Data Bank.

¶41

I have perused Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 order would indicate that the Agricultural Officer has reported that a

¶42

W.P.(C) No.23420 of 2023

¶43

: 6 :

¶44

KSREC report should be obtained for taking a final decision in the matter. However, without resorting to such proceedings, the petitioners' application stands rejected as per Ext.P8 order. In view of the recommendations made by the Agricultural Officer, I am of the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer should reconsider the matter after obtaining a KSREC report in respect of the land of the petitioners.

¶45

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that if the petitioners make an application for KSREC report to the 3^rd respondent-Agricultural Officer paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, the same shall be accepted and the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioners and dispose of the same taking into account the KSREC report also, within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of KSREC report.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

sss

W.P.(C) No.23420 of 2023

¶51

: 7 :

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23420/2023

¶53

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶54

EXHIBIT P-1	TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED
	NO.216/1972 DATED 07.02.1974 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, MUNDUR.
EXHIBIT P-2	TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED
	NO.426/1981 DATED 19.02.1981 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, MUNDUR.
EXHIBIT P-3	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND RECEIPT NO.KL08013700840/2022 DATED 17.05.2022.
EXHIBIT P-4	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND RECEIPT NO.KL08013701337/2022 DATED 17.06.2022.
EXHIBIT P-5	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF THANGALUR VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P-6	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND.
EXHIBIT P-7	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 27.07.2022 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P-8	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 803/2022 DATED 11.10.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P-9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN IN NIYAS V. DISTRICT
	COLLECTOR [2023(2) KLT 411] DATED 22.02.2023.
EXHIBIT P-10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN JAFFERKHAN V. KUNJUMARAKKAR [2012 (1) KHC 523] DATED 18.1.2012.

Jayasree P, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayasree P, v. the 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

Dr. Parvathy.a. Vs Peethambara Kurup

George Pathrose Vs Vishnu Raj. P. IAS

Khadeeja Vs Secretary

Thankamani Das, Vs P.Vishnu Raj IAS

Johny Vs State of Kerala

Jayadevan Vs the District Collector