Writ petition challenging rejection of Form 5 application to remove land from Paddy Land Data Bank. Court quashed impugned order directing re-evaluation based on satellite reports.
Setting aside Ext P1 order. Direction to 1st respondent to reconsider Form 5 application considering P4 and P5 within one month.
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.
W.P.(C).No.31193 of 2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 31193 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
P. V. BAVA,GED 73 YEARS S/O. KUNHAVA, PAMBALATHU VALAPPIL, P.O. CHAZHIYATTIRI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679535
BY ADVS. SANTHEEP ANKARATH P.ANIRUDHAN
RESPONDENTS:
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.31193 of 2023 2
VIJU ABRAHAM,J
W.P.(C).No.31193 of 2023
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved
by Ext.P1 order whereby Form 5 application has been rejected.
which specifically states that as per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 349/5 was observed under
paddy land and the plot was observed under
scattered mixed vegetation/plantation/trees in the year 2006 and 2010 data and the plot was observed under mixed vegetation/plantation/ trees with a building/structure towards north east corner in 2016 and 2022 data. Petitioner also relies on
Ext.P5 report submitted by the Agricultural Officer subsequent to the issuance of Ext.P1 order, wherein
it was recommended that the property could be removed from the data bank. Petitioner submits that
the property has been converted long back and therefore, Ext.P1 is liable to be interfered with.
W.P.(C).No.31193 of 2023 3
of Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394] has held
that the Data Bank that 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
W.P.(C).No.31193 of 2023 4
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 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
W.P.(C).No.31193 of 2023 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.
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 LLMC
that not to remove the paddy land from the data bank.
petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P1 with a
consequential direction to the 1st respondent to
reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner in the light of Exts.P4 and P5. Petitioner
will be free to submit notes of argument highlighting his contentions and producing documents in support of
the same, which shall also be duly considered while reconsidering the matter as directed above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE
pm
W.P.(C).No.31193 of 2023 6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31193/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P 1 | TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. G1 - 2268/2022 DATED 09.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P 2 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD AND DATED 16.9.2022. |
| EXHIBIT P 3 | TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 14.3.2023 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P 4 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC DATED 23.3.2023. |
| EXHIBIT P 5 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.4.2023 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P 6 | PHOTOGRAPHS (4 NOS.) SHOWING TREES STANDING IN THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the Form 5 application to remove land from the Data Bank is unsustainable as it relied solely on LLMC decision without independent assessment.
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer has a duty to independently assess land status and consider scientific data before dismissing a removal application under the Act, 2008.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and OthersReferred¶30
Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others[2017 (1) KHC 394]
Lalu P.S. v. State of KeralaReferred¶32
Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala[2020 (5) KHC 490]
Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub CollectorReferred¶34
Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector[2021 (1) KLT 433]
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of KeralaReferred¶36
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala[2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222]
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional OfficerExplained¶42
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (4) KLT 270]
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional OfficerExplained¶49
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2023 (5) KLT 432]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. V. BAVA
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
VIJU ABRAHAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
VIJU ABRAHAM
Parties & counsel
