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.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P7 whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC.

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 3.95 Ares of land comprised in Block No.178, Re-Sy. No.9/2 of Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District as per Ext.P1 sale deed.

3. The relevant consideration for inclusion of a property as paddy land or wet land is as to the nature of the property as on the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, ‘the Act’). On a perusal of Ext.P7, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date coming into force of the Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank.

4. This Court has held in the decision in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [ 2022 (7) KHC 591 ] that, the Revenue Divisional Officer must, while considering an application for removal of a property from the Data Bank consider the question whether the land was a paddy land on the date of coming into force of the Act and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (4) KLT 270 ] has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from the Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to remove the land from Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer being the competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the land and come to a conclusion that removal of the land from Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question or in the nearby paddy lands or that it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. Reliance upon the reports of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC alone will not be sufficient while taking a decision on an application under Form 5.

5. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P7, with a direction to the 1 st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider Ext.P5 application in Form 5 and take a decision in the matter after adverting to KSRSEC report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.