Allowed

Dany Thomas.E, v. * the Village Officer, *

Kerala HC3 Nov 2023WP(C)/7894/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged the rejection of his land removal application from the Kerala Land Code (Data Bank). The Court held that the Revenue Officer must independently assess land status rather than relying solely on the Local Level Monitoring Committee, setting aside the order.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order set aside; respondent directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application in light of cited judgments within three months.

Dany Thomas.E, Vs * the Village Officer, * — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7894 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 3305/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

DANY THOMAS.E,AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS.E.J., IDAPPANATTU HOUSE,
THEKKUMKARA, PANANGATTUKARA P.O., THALAPPILLY,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680623
BY ADVS.
C.A.ANOOP
R.KRISHNA
VANESHA VISWAMBARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1* THE VILLAGE OFFICER, *
AYYANTHOLE-PUNKUNAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA- 680003

¶11

*CORRECTED AS THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUTTOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, KUTTOOR, THRISSUR,
KERALA, 680013(AS PER ORDER DATED 05-12-2023 IN IA 1/23 IN
WPC)

¶12

2THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LANE ROAD,
AYYANTHOLE, PIN - 680003

¶13

3* LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, *
RREPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/CONVEYOR,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
PUTHURKKARA, THRISSUR, KERALA 680012

¶14

*CORRECTED AS LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/CONVEYOR,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLAZHY,
THRISSUR, KERLA - 680631 (AS PER ORDER DATED 05-12-2023 IN
IA 1/23 IN WPC)

¶15

WP(C) No.7894 of 2023

¶16

¶17

4STATE OF KERALA,
RREPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶18

BY GP SYAMANTHAK B.S.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) No.7894 of 2023

¶21

¶22

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶23

W.P (C) No.7894 of 2023

¶24

................................................................. Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2023

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P6 order whereby Ext.P3 application in Form 5 submitted by him has been rejected by the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

Petitioner is the owner of 2.2 Ares (5.43 cents) of land comprised in resurvey no.970/6-2 of Ayyanthole Sub Registrar Office, Thrissur. Petitioner submits that since the property has been wrongly included in the data bank, Ext.P3 application in Form 5 was submitted by him which has now been rejected by Ext.P6 order. Petitioner submits that the application in Form 5 has been rejected solely relying on the report of the LLMC and there is no independent consideration by the 2^nd respondent

¶28

This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

WP(C) No.7894 of 2023

¶32

¶33

into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Division 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 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

¶34

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

¶35

WP(C) No.7894 of 2023

¶36

¶37

for consideration while considering the Form-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.

¶38

In spite of these categorical declaration by 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, not to remove the land from the data bank.

¶39

Since none of these aspects have been considered, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P6 order with a consequential direction to the 2^nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application in Form 5 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law in the light of the judgments cited supra. Petitioner will be free to submit his notes of argument which shall also be duly considered by the 2^nd respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above. A decision on Ext.P3 shall be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶40

With the abovesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM

JUDGE

cks

WP(C) No.7894 of 2023

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7894/2023

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

Exhibit-P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
17/11/2020 OF AYYANTHOLE SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE, THRISSUR
Exhibit-P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE
LAND TAX DATED 07/04/2022
Exhibit-P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER
FORM NO.5 DATED 15/04/2021
Exhibit-P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 29/07/21
Exhibit-P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT
PETITION(C) NO.3305/2023 DATED ON
16/02/2023
Exhibit-P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
01/02/2023

Dany Thomas.E, v. * the Village Officer, *

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dany Thomas.E, v. * the Village Officer, *

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Official Liquidator,M/S.Nagoor Khani Raw Vs Sri.S.v.Anilkumar

Shaji P.P Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

C.Santhosh(Corrected as C.Satheesan) and Another Vs State of Kerala

M. Velayudhan, Vs the State of Kerala

Treasan P S Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Ravi Vs State of Kerala