IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
Aparna Sasi Menon – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent
WP(C) No. 7513 of 2023
Decided on : 11-08-2023
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 5, (4)(i) - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 - Rule 4(4D), (4F) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 300A - Data Bank of Paddy Land and Wetland - Remove land from Data Bank - Petitioner challenging Ext.P7 order of Revenue Divisional Officer whereby petitioner’s request to remove petitioner’s land from Data Bank stands rejected – RDO has passed order without any cogent evidence to conclude that water chals found in petitioner's land are indispensable for paddy cultivation in nearby areas - Para 27.
Finding of the Court :
Neither LLMC nor Agricultural Officer has stated that these water chals are connected to nearby paddy fields or that water chals in petitioner's property is indispensable for irrigation of paddy fields in nearby area - Decision has been taken by RDO to reject Form-5 application of petitioner without a finding that it is feasible and viable to cultivate land of petitioner with paddy - RDO has passed order without any cogent evidence to conclude that water chals found in petitioner's land are indispensable for paddy cultivation in nearby areas – Court find that Ext.P7 order of Revenue Divisional Officer is illegal and unsustainable - Ext.P7 is therefore set aside - 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider Form-5 application of petitioner.
Result: Petition is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, who is owner of 68.78 Ares of property in Pullut Village, is challenging Ext.P7 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, whereby the petitioner’s request to remove the petitioner’s land from Data Bank stands rejected.
2. The petitioner is owner of 68.78 Ares of property comprised in Survey Nos.115/PT-7, 116/2-1 and 116/3 of Block No.12 of Pullut Village, Kodungallur Taluk of Thrissur 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'.
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 Form-5 application, invoking Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
4. The petitioner’s Ext.P6 Form-5 application has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P7 order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order. According to the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the petitioner’s application solely based on a report dated 03.01.2023 of the Agricultural Officer. 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 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 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 dated 03.01.2023. The said Report was made on the basis of a Site 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 and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.
9. The petitioner is owner of 68.78 Ares of property comprised in Survey Nos.115/PT-7, 116/2-1 and 116/3 of Block No.12 of Pullut Village, Kodungallur Taluk of Thrissur 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.P7 order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda. The Revenue Divisional Officer has passed Ext.P7 order based on a report dated 03.01.2023 of the Agricultural Officer. In his report, the Agricultural Officer has stated that the Local Level Monitoring Committee has inspected the Site and has opined that if the land of the petitioner is permitted to be converted , it will adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the nearby area and therefor
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala and others 2022 (4) KLT Online 1222
Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector
Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (5) KLT 712]
Salim C.K. and another v. State of Kerala and others [2017 (1) KLT 392
Section 5 of Act 2008 reads as constitution of Local level Monitoring Committee.
The court emphasized the need for independent assessment of the status of the land and consideration of its impact on paddy cultivation and wetlands when deciding on the exclusion of land from the Da....
The main legal point established is that the Revenue Divisional Officer must independently assess the status of the land and consider the impact of removing the land from the Data Bank on paddy culti....
The Revenue Divisional Officer must independently assess land status before rejecting an application to remove land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.
The court reaffirmed the need for practical assessment criteria based on direct evidence when determining suitability for land classification under the conservation act.
The Revenue Divisional Officer must independently assess land status when considering removal from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The court ruled that statutory procedures must be adhered to when altering land classifications under the Act, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining requisite reports to ensure lawful decision-makin....
The court establishes the requirement for comprehensive assessment before rejecting applications related to agricultural land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The authorized officer must consider suitability for paddy cultivation and binding legal precedents when determining land classification, ensuring compliance with judicial directives during inspectio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.