Allowed

Kumaran, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2023WP(C)/2375/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his application to remove his land from the Land Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The High Court held that rejecting the application while allowing similar land in the same Survey Number to be excluded was arbitrary and unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 set aside; the Revenue Divisional Officer directed to reconsider the Form-5 application and take a decision afresh within two months, noting Exts.P5 and P6.

Kumaran, 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 N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2375 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KUMARAN,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.CHEERAMBAN, KOLAVANKKAD HOUSE,
PARUTHIPPULLI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678573

¶8

BY ADV K.MOHANAKANNAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-, PIN - 678013

¶12

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

¶13

4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KUTHANNUR KRISHI BHAVAN REPRESENTED BY ITS AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PIN - 678721

¶14

5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KUTHANNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678721

¶15

6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTHANUR -II VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678721

¶16

BY ADV.DEVISREE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 2375 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2023

¶22

The petitioner, who is in possession of 0.1710 Hectare of land in Kuthanur-II Village, Alathur Taluk of Palakkad District, is aggrieved by Ext.P4 proceedings of the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting the petitioner's application to remove his land from the Data Bank.

¶23

The petitioner states that the petitioner purchased the property in the year 2008. The property was in the nature of 'Purayidam' when the petitioner purchased the property. However, when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 came into force, the land was included in the Land Data Bank formulated under Section 5(4)(i) of the Act, 2008.

¶24

As the petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes, an application was made in Form-5 seeking to remove the land from Data Bank. The application of the

¶25

¶26

WP(C) NO. 2375 OF 2023

¶27

petitioner stands rejected as per Ext.P4 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶28

The petitioner submits that Ext.P4 order is highly illegal and arbitrary. The sole reason extended in Ext.P4 for rejecting the application of the petitioner is that there is paddy cultivation in other areas falling under the same Survey Number and if the petitioner's land is removed from the Land Data Bank, that will adversely affect paddy cultivation.

¶29

The petitioner submits that when the Revenue Divisional Officer has taken such a stand in respect of the petitioner's property, in another application submitted by one Mohandas, a land in the very same Survey Number was excluded on the basis of Form-5 application. Similarly, one Rathnakumar, who also possessed land in the very same Survey Number, was given the benefit of a positive order on Form-5 application submitted by him. In the circumstances, the reason extended by the Revenue Divisional Officer in Ext.P4 is highly arbitrary and unsustainable. Ext.P4 is

¶30

WP(C) NO. 2375 OF 2023
4

¶31

therefore liable to be set aside, contended the petitioner.

¶32

Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that as soon as Form-5 application was received from the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Agricultural Officer. The Agricultural Officer, on the basis of a report given by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, submitted a report No.KTR/47/2021-22. The Agricultural Officer found that though there are coconut trees in the petitioner's land, they were of less than 10 years of age. The Agricultural Officer further reported that in the remaining areas in the same Survey Number, paddy cultivation is going on. It was on the basis of the fact finding report given by the Agricultural Officer that the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 order is not liable to be interfered with on any of the grounds urged by the petitioner, contended the Government Pleader.

¶33

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the

¶34

WP(C) NO. 2375 OF 2023

¶35

¶36

respondents.

¶37

A reading of Ext.P4 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer would show that the petitioner's land falling in Survey No.8/1 was found to be not suitable to exclude from the Data Bank for the reason that in the other lands in the same Survey Number, paddy cultivation is going on. At the same time, Ext.P5 proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer would show that the land of one Mohandas K.N., in Survey No.8/18 has been excluded from the Data Bank on the basis of Form-5 application. Similarly, in the case of one Rathnakumar K.N., land in Re-Survey No.8/19(8/1) was also excluded from the Land Data Bank.

¶38

Prima facie , those lands fall under the same Survey Number. Therefore, I am of the view that rejection of the petitioner's application under Form-5 on that score is unsustainable. If the Revenue Divisional Officer found that there are distinguishable feature in respect of the other lands and the petitioner's land, such a reason should have been

¶39

WP(C) NO. 2375 OF 2023
6

¶40

reflected in Ext.P4. It is absent in Ext.P4.

¶41

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P4 and directing the 3^rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner and take a decision afresh thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of two months. While considering the application of the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall also take note of Exts.P5 and P6 proceedings.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

nkr

WP(C) NO. 2375 OF 2023

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2375/2023

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.241/1/08
DATED 15-1-2008

¶51

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK NOTIFIED AS
PER GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 3-2-
2021
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE SITE
AND PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FILE
NO.RDOPKD/2495/2022-J2 OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 20-6-2022
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING FILE
NO.955/22 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
17-11-2022
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FILE
NO.956/22 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
17-11-2022

¶52

EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY.

Kumaran, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumaran, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noufal P.S. Vs M. Babu Abdul Khadeer

Jayanthi L, Vs the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Chinchu Bose Vs the District Collector

R Sumathi Vs Binu Francis

Mini U., Vs Union of India

Sholly Mathew, Vs Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat