SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
Valasala V.M., W/o. C. Vinayaraghavan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 3933 of 2024
Decided on : 29-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.V.JAYADEEP MENON, T.P.RAMESH (THENGUMPILLIL), P.KRISHNAPRIYA, HARIPRASAD K.
For the Respondent: SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the coordination of jurisdiction between the LLMC and the Revenue Divisional Officer in the correction of entries or removal of land from the Data Bank, and the requirement for local inspection reports and satellite images in making decisions regarding the nature of the land.

Headnote:

Local Level Monitoring Committee - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland - Rule 4(8) of Act, 2008 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 5(4)(i) of Act, 2008; Rule 4(4d), 4(6), 4(7), 4(8), 4(10) of Rules, 2008 - The court discussed the powers of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) under Rule 4(8) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and the relevant provisions in Section 5(4)(i) and Rule 4 of the Rules, 2008. The court emphasized the procedures for correction of entries in the Data Bank, the role of the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the decision-making process of the LLMC, highlighting the requirement for local inspection reports and satellite images in making decisions regarding the nature of the land.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought to remove their land from the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, as it was wrongly included. The LLMC decided not to remove the property, and the Revenue Divisional Officer did not take further action, leading to the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the decision of the LLMC and directed them to pass fresh orders after obtaining a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre. The petitioners were instructed to apply for the report, and the LLMC was directed to make decisions expeditiously within two months of receiving the report.

Issues: The main issue was whether the LLMC was required to forward the decision made under Rule 4(8) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, to the Revenue Divisional Officer for approval.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the LLMC and the Revenue Divisional Officer have coordinate jurisdiction in the matter of correction of entries or removal of land from the Data Bank. It highlighted the requirement for local inspection reports and satellite images in making decisions regarding the nature of the land.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the LLMC to pass fresh orders after obtaining a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, and for the petitioners to apply for the report within two weeks. The LLMC was instructed to make decisions expeditiously within two months of receiving the report.

JUDGMENT :

The moot question arising for consideration in this case is whether the Local Level Monitoring Committee is required to forward the decision made under Rule 4(8) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, in an application for correction of entries in the Data Bank to the Revenue Divisional Officer for approval.

2. The petitioners are the absolute owners and in possession of an extent of 4.04 Ares of land comprised in Block No.123, Re. Sy. No.24/105 of Nadama Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, Ernakulam District. The said property is included as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register and as 'converted dry land' in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2008'). According to the petitioners, the said property is lying as dry land and is not suitable for any agricultural operation and there is no cultivation in the property for the past several years. However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank. The petitioners intend to carry out constructions in the property. Therefore, they submitted Ext.P4 application before the 5th respondent LLMC to remove the property from the Data Bank.

3. The Agricultural Officer, vide Ext.P5 reported that, on inspecting the subject land, the LLMC has found that the land is still remaining as 'Nilam' and as per the decision of the LLMC on 26.02.2022, entered in the Minutes Book as decision No. 113, it has been decided not to remove the property from the Data Bank. Ext. P6 is the relevant extract of the Minutes Book of the LLMC.

4. The petitioners state that, following the decision of the LLMC, the Revenue Divisional Officer has not taken Ext.P4 application to a logical conclusion by passing further orders. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer to proceed further on Ext.P4 application, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for respondents.

6. Section 5(4)(i) of the Act, 2008, empowers6 the LLMC to prepare a Data Bank with the details of the cultivable paddy land and wetland within the jurisdiction of the Committee. The proviso to Section 5(4)(i) provides that any person aggrieved by the entries in the Data Bank notified and exhibited as per Section 5(4)(i), may prefer an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and the Revenue Divisional Officer shall dispose of such application within a period of three months after following such procedure, as may be prescribed, and in case the Revenue Divisional Officer finds that the land included as paddy land or wetland in the said Data Bank is not paddy land or wetland, it shall be deemed to have been removed from the Data Bank.

7. Rule 4 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2008') deals with preparation of Data Bank. Rule 4(4d) provides that, if any person is aggrieved by inclusion of property in the Data Bank, he can submit an application in Form 5 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who shall pass appropriate orders on the application in terms of Rules 4(4E) and 4(4F). Rule 4(6) provides that any person aggrieved by wrong entries in the Data Bank notified as per sub rule 4 of Rule 4, may file a review application before the convener of the LLMC concerned within 90 days from the date of commencement of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules, 2017. Under Rule 4(7), the LLMC is empowered to accept applications despite any delay in filing, on sufficient reasons. Rule 4(8) provides that, on receipt of an application under Rule 4(6), the LLMC shall inspect the land concerned and prepare a report as to the nature of the land and shall arrange for satellite images to be taken before and after the date of commencement of the Act, 2008 and shall take a decision regarding the nature of the land. Wherever there is change in the nature of

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top