Disposed

T.K.Ramesh v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC14 Aug 2023WP(C)/2427/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenges rejection of application to remove agricultural land from Paddy Data Bank. Court sets aside order, directing authorities to obtain KSREC scientific report before reconsidering the application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by setting aside impugned order and directing respondents to obtain KSREC report and reconsider application for removal from Data Bank.

T.K.Ramesh Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2427 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

T.K.RAMESH

¶7

AGED 43 YEARS
S/O T.S.KALYANARAMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, PUSHPAGIRI, 1/191,
THRIKKUR MADHOM, KALYAN EXTENSION, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR,
PIN -680 002.

¶8

BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN -680 003

¶11

2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHOOR (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 014

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, MARATHAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR. PIN - 680 306.

¶13

GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT. DEVISHRI R.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO.2427 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2023

¶19

The petitioner, who is owner of 46.70 Ares of property in Marathakkara Village, is challenging Ext.P5 order of the Sub Collector, Thrissur, whereby the petitioner’s request to remove the petitioner’s land from the Data Bank stands rejected.

¶20

The petitioner owns 46.70 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey No.50/36 of Marathakkara Village, Thrissur Taluk of Thrissur District. According to the petitioner, 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 'Purayidam'.

¶21

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 petitioner’s land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioner

¶22

WP(C) NO.2427 OF 2023

¶23

3

¶24

wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in Form-5, invoking Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

¶25

The petitioner’s Form-5 application has been rejected by the Sub Collector as per Ext.P5 order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order. According to the petitioner, the Sub Collector has rejected the petitioner’s application solely based on a report submitted by the Agricultural Officer. The petitioner submits that it is evident from the order that the Sub Collector has neither made a Site inspection nor he has applied his mind while passing the impugned order.

¶26

The property of the petitioner lies in the nature of 'Purayidam'. Had the Sub Collector 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 petitioner. If the order of the Sub Collector is allowed to stand, it

¶27

WP(C) NO.2427 OF 2023

¶28

¶29

will interfere with the constitutional right of the petitioner to freely enjoy the land, which in turn will be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, urged the petitioner.

¶30

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

¶31

Based on the findings of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the Agricultural Officer submitted a Report dated 25.11.2022. The Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) had taken a decision on 16.11.2022 and it was based on the said decision that the Agricultural Officer has given a report. 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 petitioner has not advanced any

¶32

WP(C) NO.2427 OF 2023

¶33

¶34

legal reason to unsettle the decision taken by the Sub Collector, the Government Pleader insisted.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶36

and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶37

The petitioner owns 46.70 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey No.50/36 of Marathakkara Village, Thrissur Taluk of Thrissur District. The petitioner’s land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in Form-5. The petitioner’s Form-5 application has been rejected by the Sub Collector as per Ext.P5 order.

¶38

I have perused Ext.P5 order of the Sub Collector, Thrissur passed on 29.11.2022. The Sub Collector has passed order based on a report dated 25.11.2022 of the Agricultural Officer, Puthoor. The Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) had taken a decision on 16.11.2022 and it was based

¶39

WP(C) NO.2427 OF 2023

¶40

¶41

on the said decision that the Agricultural Officer has given a report.

¶42

Ext.P5 would show that the LLMC and the Agricultural Officer have come to a conclusion that the land is low lying and it was not converted prior to the year 2008. It is based on those observations of the LLMC / Agricultural Officer that the Sub Collector has rejected the application of the petitioner.

¶43

The fact that a land is low lying would not by itself be sufficient to assume that the land is a paddy land. Ext.P5 does not indicate that the authorities have come to a conclusion as to the cultivability of the land with paddy. No reasons are forthcoming in Ext.P5 to indicate based on what factors that the LLMC and the Agricultural Officer have come to a conclusion that the land was not converted prior to the year 2008. Had the Sub Collector harboured any doubt relating to the nature of the petitioner’s land in the year 2008, the Sub Collector could have obtained Scientific Data for ascertaining the matter, which has

¶44

WP(C) NO.2427 OF 2023

¶45

¶46

not been done.

¶47

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P5 and directing that if the petitioner makes an application to the 2^nd respondent-Agricultural Officer for obtaining KSREC Report paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, then the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer shall reconsider Ext.P3 Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner within a further period of two months.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO.2427 OF 2023

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2427/2023

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶56

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2197 OF
2012 OF S.R.O. KUTTANELLUR DATED
31.05.2012
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
13.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
05.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
01.11.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO.34649 OF 2022
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D7-6216/2021
DATED 29.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT

T.K.Ramesh v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Ramesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.B. Granites, Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Aparna Sasi Menon, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Mrs. Vimala Menon, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Fort Kochi

Sujitha P Vs Anil Kumar N

N C Saly Vs Vishnu Raj P IAS

Immaculate Conception Church Vs Eloor Municipality