Allowed

Jacob Daniel v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Nov 2023WP(C)/23530/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a Form-5 application to remove agricultural land from the Data Bank. The High Court set aside the order, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to independently assess the land's status, obtain a KSREC report, and reconsider the application following statutory rules. The court highlighted previous precedents requiring independent assessment over rel

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order set aside and respondent directed to reconsider Form-5 application after obtaining KSREC Report and conducting site inspection.

Jacob Daniel Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23530 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JACOB DANIEL AGED 56 YEARS S/O M.C.DANIEL, MULAMOOTTIL VEEDU, VENGOOR, VENGOOR.P.O, ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN-691013.

¶11

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691305.

¶12

4 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691506.

¶13

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ELAMADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691539.

¶14

6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ELAMADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENORAGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ELAMADU.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691533.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶18

29.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C). No.23530 of 2021

¶20

: 2 :

¶21

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶22

- - - - W.P.(C) No.23530 of 2021

¶23

- - - - Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2023

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P6 order, whereby Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the 3^rd respondent solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer that the property has been transferred after 2008. The petitioner would contend that there is no independent consideration by the 3^rd respondent regarding the issue involved.

¶26

The petitioner is the owner and in absolute possession and enjoyment of an extent of 13.25 Ares in Re.Sy. No.100/1 in Block 28 of Elamadu Village. The petitioner submits that the reason stated in Ext.P6 is arbitrary and unsustainable and an application in Form 5 cannot be rejected for the said reason. The petitioner would further contend that going by Ext.P3 data bank, the property has been though included in the data bank, in the remarks column it is stated as 'purayidam'.

¶27

This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394] has held that the Data Bank that

¶28

W.P.(C). No.23530 of 2021

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

was 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 KSREC. 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

¶31

W.P.(C). No.23530 of 2021

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

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 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.

¶34

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 decision of the Agricultural Officer, not to remove the land from the data bank. If the property is in fact included in the data bank as 'purayidam', I find no reason why the application submitted by the petitioner could be rejected.

¶35

W.P.(C). No.23530 of 2021

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

In view of the above, Ext.P6 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 3^rd 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 3^rd respondent shall pass order afresh in the Form-5 application within a further period of three 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 and after conducting a site inspection. Petitioner will be free to file argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him and the documents including Ext.P3 to substantiate his contentions and the 3^rd respondent 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.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶40

sm/

¶41

: 6 :

¶42

W.P.(C). No.23530 of 2021

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23530/2021

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.KL 02042603484/2021 DATED 13.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 PHOTOS SHOWING THE PRESENT NATURE OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE PETITIONER AND SUBJECT MATTER OF EXHIBIT P4-APPLICATION Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT SHOWING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.100/1 IN BLOCK NO.28 OF ELAMADU VILLAGE Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A.3901/2021/K.DIS. DATED 21.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Jacob Daniel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob Daniel v. State of Kerala

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

Sree Venkitachalapathy Devaswom Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

Sivakumar Lekshmanan Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Basil, Vs Local Level Monitoring Committee

Amala Mary Jose Vs State of Kerala

Fasil Vs Revenue Divisional Officer,Tirur

Biju G Vs State of Kerala