Disposed

Manju Bastin v. the District Collector

Kerala HC28 Feb 2024WP(C)/6400/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of her Form 5 application to remove land from the paddy land data bank, contending it was reclaimed before the 2008 Act and no scientific KSREC report was obtained. The Court held the order was non-speaking and set it aside with directions for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order set aside; RDO directed to reconsider Form 5 application within three months, considering any KSREC report; petitioner free to apply for KSREC report within two weeks.

Manju Bastin Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6400 OF 2024

¶4

PETITIONER(S):

¶5

MANJU BASTIN
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O. MANOJ N G, NELLINILKKUMTHADATHIL HOUSE,
VAZHAVATTA P.O., WAYANAD, PIN - 673122

¶6

BY ADVS.
AMJATHA D.A.
SHAKTHI PRAKASH
MUHASIN K.M.
FARHANA K.H.

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAIRALI NAGAR, KALPETTA, WAYANADU, PIN - 673122

¶9

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MANANTHAVADY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY P.O., WAYANADU, PIN - 670645

¶10

3 THE TAHSILDAR VYTHIRI TALUK OFFICE, VYTHIRI, KUNNATHIDAVAKA, WAYANADU, PIN - 673576

¶11

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MUTTIL NORTH VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTTIL NORTH, MUTTIL, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122

¶12

5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER MUTTIL KRISHI BHAVAN, MUTTIL, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122

¶13

6 THE DIRECTOR KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶14

¶15

WP(C) NO.6400 OF 2024

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SMT.AMMNIKUTTY.K, SR.GP
SRI. VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC, KSREC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO.6400 OF 2024

¶20

¶21

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶22

W.P.(C) No.6400 of 2024

¶23

Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2024

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The above Writ Petition is filed with the

¶26

following prayers:

¶27

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 order and quash the same.

¶28

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to reconsider Form 5 application and pass orders afresh after obtaining a report from the 6^th respondent, KSREC with regard to the nature of the property as on 2008.

¶29

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 6^th respondent to file a report before the 2^nd and 5^th respondent with regard to nature and lie of the petitioner’s property in 2008.

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO.6400 OF 2024

¶32

iv) To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

¶33

v) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

¶34

The petitioner filed a Form 5 application before the 2^nd respondent for removing the property from the data bank. The 2^nd respondent, after obtaining a report from the 5^th respondent passed Ext.P3 order rejecting the petitioner’s application. According to the petitioner, the property of the petitioner was reclaimed much before the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the application was rejected without obtaining scientific report from the KSREC with respect to nature of the petitioner’s property as on 2008. It is the case

¶35

¶36

WP(C) NO.6400 OF 2024

¶37

of the petitioner that, if the 2^nd respondent had sought for a report from the KSREC, the true facts could have been ascertained. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the Form 5 application, this writ petition is filed.

¶38

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶39

This Court perused Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 is not a speaking order. Except relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the contention of the petitioner is not adverted while passing Ext.P3 order. In Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270], this Court observed that, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that Local Level Monitoring Commitee has decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank.

¶40

The Revenue Divisional Officer, being the competent authority, has to independently assess the

¶41

¶42

WP(C) NO.6400 OF 2024

¶43

status of the land and come to a conclusion that, removal of the land from the Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question and 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.

¶44

In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (5) KLT 432], this Court observed that the predominant factor for consideration while considering Form 5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from the Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible or feasible.

¶45

According to the petitioner, the impugned order is passed in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not applied his mind and simply accepted the

¶46

¶47

WP(C) NO.6400 OF 2024

¶48

report. It is also submitted that, the KSREC report is not properly considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The contention of the petitioner is that the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 is not ascertained properly as per scientific process.

¶49

After going through the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 2^nd respondent while passing the order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside.

¶50

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶51

a) Ext.P3 order is set aside. b) The 2^nd respondent is directed to

¶52

reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as

¶53

WP(C) NO.6400 OF 2024

¶54

¶55

possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶56

c) The petitioner is free to submit an application before the appropriate authority for getting the KSREC report within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and if such an application is filed, the authority concerned will do the needful to obtain the same, in accordance with law. If KSREC report is available, the same will be considered by the 2^nd respondent. If any report from the KSREC is called for, the Revenue Divisional Officer need to pass final orders in Form 5 application only within three months from the date of receipt of the report from KSREC.

¶57

WP(C) NO.6400 OF 2024

¶58

¶59

d) The petitioner will produce the certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition with exhibits before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

nvj

¶62

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶63

WP(C) NO.6400 OF 2024

¶64

¶65

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6400/2024

¶66

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶67

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
01.04.2023

¶68

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
07.06.2022

¶69

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT

¶70

EXHIBIT P4COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER

¶71

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶72

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Manju Bastin v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Bastin v. the District Collector

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

Amal S, Vs State of Kerala

Unni Jude Vs State of Kerala

Rajendra Babu Vs Land Acquisition Officer

Manager Vellamunda a.U.P.School Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Majeed Vs Keezhuparambu Grama Panchayath

Dr.Kisinger Vs State of Kerala