Baburaj, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub Collector)

¶1

2025:KER:19568

¶2

WP(C) No.39961 OF 2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

WP(C) NO. 39961 OF 2023

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

BABURAJ,

¶11

AGED 56 YEARS

¶12

S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, OTTOORKALAM, PUTHENVEED,
THARUVAKONAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679501

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

P.R.VENKATESH
LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R.

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 676101

¶17

2 TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101

¶18

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKADEERI-II VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679502

¶19

4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, THRIKKADEERI-II VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679502

¶20

5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, THRIKKADEERI-II VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679502

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

Smt.Preetha.K.K, Sr.G.P

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

2025:KER:19568

¶25

WP(C) No.39961 OF 2023

¶26

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 0.0407 hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.227/19 and 0.1248 hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.227/5-1 in Block No.057 of Thrikkadeeri-II Village in Ottapalam Taluk in Palakkad District. The petitioner submitted an application in Form-5 for deleting the property of the petitioner from the Data Bank, prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008,(hereinafter referred to as ‘Paddy Land Act’) , as according to him, the property was reclaimed much prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act and therefore, it was erroneously included therein. Ext.P4 was the said application. The same is disposed of as per Ext.P5 by the 1st respondent, wherein out of the total extent of property, 0.0407 hectares of land was ordered to be retained in the Data Bank and the remaining properties were excluded from the Data Bank. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5, to the extent a decision was taken to retain 0.0407 hectares comprised in Sy.No.227/19 of the property of the petitioner in the Data Bank.

¶29

WP(C) No.39961 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

2025:KER:19568

¶32

A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein they have incorporated averments to support the findings in Ext.P5 order.

¶33

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶34

The challenge raised by the petitioner as against Ext.P5 is mainly on the ground that, the crucial aspect as to whether the portion of the property of the petitioner, which was ordered to be retained in the Data Bank was fit for paddy cultivation, was not considered. The Exts.P6 series photographs were relied on to substantiate that there are trees in the property and under no circumstances the proprty could be utilized for paddy cultivation. Besides, it was contended that, in Ext.P5, the 1st respondent did not conduct an independent assessment of the status of land and instead, the report of the Agriculture Officer in this regard was simply accepted.

¶35

After carefully going through the records, I find some merit in the said contention.As far as an application in Form-5 is concerned, the crucial aspect to be considered is whether the property, which is the subject matter, was being utilised for

¶36

2025:KER:19568

¶37

WP(C) No.39961 OF 2023

¶38

¶39

paddy cultivation for at least once a year, or the property was fit for paddy cultivation. These are some of the crucial requirements for treating a propterty as a paddy land, as per the definition of paddy land contained in Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act. In this case, there is no case for the respondents that the property was being cultivated with paddy for at least once in a year and therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to enter into a specific finding as to whether the property was fit for paddy cultivation as on the date enactment of the Paddy Land Act.

¶40

In this case, on going through the KSRSEC report which is referred to in the order, a copy of which is made available by the learned Government Pleader, it is seen that, there is indication of the existence of a building in the said property and presumably taking note of the same, the property where the building situated, was excluded from the Data Bank. However, with regard to the remaining property, which was decided to be retained in the Data Bank, no finding has been entered into as to whether the property was fit for paddy cultivation or not. This is very crucial, in view of the fact that, a substantial part of the property was already directed to be removed from the Data Bank, taking note of the improvements therein.

¶41

2025:KER:19568

¶42

WP(C) No.39961 OF 2023

¶43

¶44

A perusal of Ext.P6 photographs, prima facie indicates that, there is not much difference in terms of the features, between the properties where the residence is situated and the other properties. Even though the photographs cannot be taken as conclusive proof, it indicates the necessity to have a careful examination of the nature of the properties and the difference in the nature of the properties already directed to be removed, and the property decided to be retained. Since Ext.P5 does not contain any such exercise, it cannot be treated as a proper order in tune with the statutory requirements contemplated under the Act. Hence, it requires reconsideration.

¶45

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5, with a direction to the 1st respondent or the authorized ofcer under fi Section 2(xvA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, to reconsider Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 and pass fresh orders in the light of the observations made by this Court. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶48

SM/14.03

¶49

2025:KER:19568

¶50

WP(C) No.39961 OF 2023

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39961/2023

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶54

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED` `DOCUMENT NO. 5990/2010 OF SRO, CHERPLASSERI` `DATED 22.12.2010`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED` `20.4.2023`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF TANDAPER DATED 7.5.2023`
`Exhibit P4`	`. TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 05.04.2022` `IN FORM-5 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE` `THE RDO`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.4.2023 OF THE` `RDO`
`Exhibit P6`	`FEW PHOTOGRAPHS RELATING TO THE PROPERTY`

¶55

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶56

TRUE COPY

¶57

P.A.TO JUDGE

Baburaj, v. Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub Collector)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburaj, v. Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub Collector)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vengalil Narayanikutty @ Ambujam, Vs Revenue Divisional Office

Nish P v Vs the State of Kerala

Philomina Joseph Vs J. Thajudeen

Dr. Anoop Kumar, Vs the District Collector

Shibu U, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Palakkad

Kanhiroli Laila, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode