Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 30874 OF 2023 PETITIONER: C. ABDUL AZEEZ AGED 52 YEARS S/O ALIKKUTTY HAJI, CHOVVANCHERI HOUSE, ERAVANNUR AMSOM, PULLALUR DESOM, P.O. PARANNUR, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673011 BY ADV S.K.SAJU RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 SUB COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION,MINI CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020 3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, MADAVOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673585 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MADAVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, MADAVOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673585 -:2:- BY ADV. AMMINIKUTTY K SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of September, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, is the owner of 25.86 Ares of property in Re-Survey No.20/B3 of Block No.7 of Eravannur Amsom, Pullaloor Desom, Madavoor Village, Kozhikode Taluk. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order of the second respondent, whereby the petitioner’s request to remove his land from the data bank stands rejected.
2. Petitioner alleges that his land was converted prior to the
enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, the Act) and it is presently a 'dry land'. However, when the data bank was prepared under Section 5(4)(i) of the Act, his land was wrongly included in it. Since, petitioner requires the land for other purposes, he submitted Form-5 application, invoking Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, the Rules).
3. By the impugned order, petitioner’s application was rejected by
the Revenue Divisional Officer. According to the petitioner, his application was rejected solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer without even a site inspection or any application of mind and is -:4:- hence not a speaking order.
4. I have heard Sri. S.K.Saju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Amminikutty.K., the learned Senior Government Pleader and have also perused the impugned order.
5. Petitioner’s application in Form 5 of the Rules was rejected
relying on the Agricultural Officer’s report dated 06.05.2022. The said report stated that petitioner’s land need not be excluded from the data bank. Petitioner asserts that the surrounding areas are well-developed with multiple buildings and also that the impugned order has not referred to the suitability for cultivation as a paddy land.
6. In the decision in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v.
State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] and in Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], this Court had observed that the RDO cannot merely follow the report of the Agricultural Officer or the LLMC without any independent assessment of the status of the land. This Court had also observed that while considering an application filed under Form 5, the Authority must consider whether the removal of the property from the data bank will affect paddy cultivation in the land and also whether it will affect the nearby paddy fields.
7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the aforementioned specific aspects have not been adverted to and instead, the application has been rejected solely on the basis of the -:5:-
report of the Agricultural Officer. The second respondent could have considered obtaining the report of scientific data for deciding the matter by directing the petitioner to apply for the same or to conduct a site visit. Since the order is bereft of material particulars and is not issued
on any perceivable data, it cannot be said to be a reasoned order. The second respondent has not, in the impugned order, entered a finding that the land is fit for cultivation with paddy or whether there are any adjacent paddy fields and if so, whether the same could be affected by the permission granted to the petitioner to remove his property from the data bank. Evidently, there is no independent application of mind to the relevant circumstances, and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and a fresh consideration be made.
8. In view of the above, I quash Ex.P3 order and direct the 2nd
respondent to reconsider Form 5 application filed by the petitioner and issue fresh orders, after considering the report of KSREC and other relevant factors mentioned in rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The order, as directed above, shall be issued within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE Jka/20.09.23. -:6:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30874/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1309/2008 DATED 02/04/2008 OF S.R.O. CHELLANNUR. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 01.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH TRUE TYPED COPY. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. C3- 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER