Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 28043 OF 2023 PETITIONER K. JAYAKUMAR AGED 69 YEARS S/O. AMMINI AMMA, SOUPARNIKA, KADEKKUZHI HOUSE, MARADU P.O., KUNDANNOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682304 BY ADVS. SHERRY J. THOMAS JOEMON ANTONY ANTONY NILTON REMELO RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 682030 3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001 4 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), KANAYANNUR, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN - 682011 5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, MARADU P.O., PIN - 682304 6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYNNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304 :2:
7 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, MARADU P.O., PIN - 682304 BY SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN-SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2023
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is owner of 6.40 Ares of property in Maradu Village, is challenging Ext.P6 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, whereby the petitioner’s request to remove the petitioner’s land from Data Bank stands rejected.
2. The petitioner is owner of 6.40 Ares of property
comprised in Survey No.214/5 of Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk of Ernakulam 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 'Purayidom'. :4:
3. 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 petitioner’s land was included in the Data Bank. The petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 Form-5 application, invoking Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
4. The petitioner’s Form-5 application has been
rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P6 order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order. According to the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the petitioner’s application solely based on a report of the Agricultural Officer, Maradu. The petitioner submits that it is evident from the order that the Revenue Divisional Officer has neither made a Site inspection nor he has applied his mind while passing the impugned order.
5. The property of the petitioner lies in the nature of 'Purayidom'. Had the Revenue Divisional Officer harboured :5:
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 nature of the land as it stood in the year 2008, contended the petitioner. If the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer 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.
6. Senior Government Pleader entered appearance
and resisted the writ petition. The Senior Government Pleader denied all the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. When the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 Form- 5 application to remove land from Data Bank, the Revenue Divisional Officer sought a report from the Agricultural Officer, who is the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee.
7. 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 :6:
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 any legal reason to unsettle the decision taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Government Pleader insisted.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.
9. The petitioner is owner of 6.40 Ares of property
comprised in Survey No.214/5 of Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk of Ernakulam 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 Form-5 application.
10. I have perused Ext.P6 order of the Revenue
Divisional Officer. Ext.P6 order has been passed based on a report of the Agricultural Officer. Ext.P6 would indicate that the land of the petitioner was found not converted prior to the :7: year 2008. The Agricultural Officer has recommended to retain the land in Data Bank. Based on the recommendation of the Agricultural Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the application of the petitioner.
11. It is to be noted that the report of the Agricultural Officer as reflected in Ext.P6 order does not state that the petitioner's land is paddy land. It does not state that the
petitioner's land is fit for paddy cultivation. Ext.P3 land identification details would indicate that the other nearby lands in the area were all converted prior to the year 2008. Ext.P2 photographs produced by the petitioner would also show that there are trees and buildings around the property of the petitioner. In view of the afore facts, if the Revenue Divisional Officer had any doubt regarding the nature of the petitioner's land, the Revenue Divisional Officer ought to have obtained scientific data before coming to any
conclusion.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P6 and directing that if the petitioner makes :8:
an application to the Agricultural Officer concerned for obtaining KSREC report within a period of two weeks after paying the prescribed fee, then the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi shall reconsider Ext.P4 Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of KSREC report.
Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/23.08.2023 :9: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28043/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 26-4-2023 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT OFFICE Exhibit P1A THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATE 3-3-2008 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND IDENTIFICATION DETAILS ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12-4-2021 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT REGARDING FORM 5
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
DATED 12-4-2023 GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TO PETITIONER