Allowed

Ragu.K.B v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC20 Jul 2023WP(C)/397/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of application to remove land from Data Bank. Court found Sub Collector relied solely on Agricultural Officer's report without considering KSREC report or LLMC minutes. Petition allowed to reconsider.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 order set aside and directing Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector to reconsider Ext.P5 Form-5 considering Ext.P3 and Ext.P9 within two months.

Ragu.K.B Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 397 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

RAGU.K.B
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.BALAN, KADAVARATH HOUSE,
CHALLISERY.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN – 679536

¶7

BY ADVS.
C.D.DILEEP
SHYLAJA VARGHESE
M.L.REMYA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OTTAPALAM RS RD, OTTAPALAM.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101

¶10

2 AGRICULTURE OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, CHALLISERY.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679536

¶11

SMT.DEVISREE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C) No.397 of 2023

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2023

¶17

The petitioner, who is owner of 1 Hectare and 40.48 Ares of property in Chalissery Village, is challenging Ext.P7 order of the Sub Collector, Ottapalam, whereby the petitioner’s request to remove the petitioner’s land from Data Bank stands rejected.

¶18

The petitioner owns 1 Hectare and 40.48 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.225/5, Block No.6 of Chalissery Village, Pattambi Taluk of Palakkad 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'.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

WP(C) No.397 of 2023

¶22

petitioner’s land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application in Form-5, invoking Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

¶23

The petitioner’s Form-5 application has been rejected by the Sub Collector as per Ext.P7 order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 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.

¶24

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

¶25

WP(C) No.397 of 2023

¶26

¶27

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 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.

¶28

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.

¶29

Based on the findings of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the Agricultural Officer submitted a Report. 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 petitioner has not advanced

¶30

¶31

WP(C) No.397 of 2023

¶32

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

¶33

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶35

The petitioner owns 1 Hectare and 40.48 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.225/5, Block No.6 of Chalissery Village, Pattambi Taluk of Palakkad 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.P5 application in Form-5.

¶36

I have perused Ext.P7. It is evident from Ext.P7 that the Sub Collector has passed the order relying on the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer. The Agricultural Officer, in his report stated that 6.14 Acres of land falling within the Survey Number is described as ‘not converted’ in the Data Bank. The 2017 Validation Report of the KSREC also describes the area as paddy land. It is based on the

¶37

¶38

WP(C) No.397 of 2023

¶39

Agricultural Officer’s report alone that Ext.P7 order has been passed. It is to be noted that in Ext.P3, which is extract of the LLMC Minutes, the Local Level Monitoring Committee has noted that there are coconut trees having more than 25 years of age. If there are coconut trees having more than 25 years of age, it is probable that the land was converted prior to the year 2007.

¶40

Furthermore, Ext.P9 is the KSREC Report in respect of the land of the petitioner. Ext.P9 KSREC Report would show that the plot of the petitioner was observed under mixed vegetation plantation trees towards west side in 2008 and 2011 Data. Ext.P9 KSREC Report has not been adverted to in Ext.P7 order of the Sub Collector. In view of the above, the Sub Collector has to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner.

¶41

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P7 and directing the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ottapalam to reconsider Ext.P5 Form-5

¶42

WP(C) No.397 of 2023

¶43

¶44

application submitted by the petitioner taking into consideration Ext.P3 extracts of the LLMC Minutes as also Ext.P9 report of the KSREC. Fresh orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.397 of 2023

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 397/2023

¶52

`PETITIONER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit-P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED`
	`NO.3742/2011 DATED 27/07/2011 OF THE` `THRITHALA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE.`
`Exhibit-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.` `2561/2015 16/06/2015 OF THE THRITHALA` `SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE.`
`Exhibit-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF LLMC` `REGISTER.`
`Exhibit-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT` `DATED 13/07/2022 OF THE CHALISSERY` `VILLAGE OFFICE.`
`Exhibit-P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION` `NO.1/2022/1150973 DATED 15.07.2022.`
`Exhibit-P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `03.08.2022 IN WP(C) 24822 OF 2022.`
`Exhibit-P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `08/12/2022` `PASSED` `BY` `THE` `1ST` `RESPONDENT IN THE EXT-P5 APPLICATION.`
`Exhibit-P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE` `PROPERTY.`
`Exhibit-P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.A-` `172/2015/KSREC/007689/22` `DATED`
	`08.12.2022 RECEIVED FROM THE KERALA`
	`STATE REMOTE AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE` `WITH IMAGES.`
`Exhibit-P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `16.12.2022`
`Exhibit-P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR ACCEPTING` `THE EXT-P10 DATED 16.12.2022 .`
`Exhibit-P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`
	`08.11.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.8572/2021 .`

Ragu.K.B v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragu.K.B v. 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

Jaicky A.R Vs Shaji N. K

.P.M. Ravi Vs Shibin William Varghese

Praseeda Venu Vs Vishnu Raj P

M/S.Marath Enterprises and Crushers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Kerala.

Manju Joemon, Vs the Malayattoor – Neeleeswaram Grama Panchayath

Abin Sha Ks Vs Kalamassery Municipality