The High Court set aside an order rejecting a Form-5 application to remove land from the Paddy Land and Wetland Data Bank. The Court directed the Sub Collector to obtain a KSREC report and reconsider the application based on that scientific evidence.
Ext.P4 set aside; directed to obtain KSREC Report and reconsider Form-5 application based on same.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6524 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SATHEESH AGED 39 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, PUNNATH HOUSE, CHERUKAVU, KANNAMVETTIKKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN – 673637.
BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TALUK OFFICE, SANTHI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679322.
2 THE AGRICULATURE OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, CHERUKAVU, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM – 679322.
BY ADV.AMMINIKUTTY K, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C) No.6524 of 2023
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2023
The petitioner, who is owner of 4.67 Ares of property in Cherukavu Village in Kondotty Taluk of Malappuram District, is challenging Ext.P4 order of the Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna, whereby the petitioner’s request to remove the petitioner’s land from the Data Bank stands rejected.
3
W.P.(C) No.6524 of 2023
4
W.P.(C) No.6524 of 2023
5
W.P.(C) No.6524 of 2023
W.P.(C) No.6524 of 2023
6
which are above 10 years of age. On that ground, the Agricultural Officer has recommended not to remove the land from the Data Bank.
7
W.P.(C) No.6524 of 2023
that there are standing coconut trees in the property of the petitioner. Facts being so, it would have been only just and proper for the Sub Collector to obtain KSREC Report before coming to a conclusion on the nature of the property of the petitioner.
In view of the above, Ext.P4 is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner submits an application for KSREC Report to the 2nd respondent-Agricultural Officer paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, then the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna shall reconsider the Form-5 application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon based on the KSREC Report, within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the KSREC Report.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
8
W.P.(C) No.6524 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6524/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUKAVU Exhibit P2 PHOTO COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.4443/2016 DATED 24.10.2016 IN S.R.O., THENHIPALAM Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2021 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.8572/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sub Collector was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application to remove land from the Data Bank without obtaining a KSREC report on the land's nature in 2008.
Whether the petitioner's constitutional right to property under Article 300A was violated by the impugned order.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Satheesh
Revenue Divisional Officer
Agriculture Officer
N. NAGARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
