A definitive reason must be provided when rejecting an application concerning land exclusion, reflecting the decision-making authority's application of mind.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15th day of November, 2022 The petitioner, who is owner of 20 Cents of land in Re-Survey No.39/1-10p of Kolazhi Village of Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P4 online order passed by the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer.

2. The petitioner states that his land is described as ‘Nilam’ in Revenue records. The land is included in the Land Data Bank also. The petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes. Therefore, he submitted an application invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, seeking to remove the land from the Data Bank.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his application has been rejected by Ext.P4 online order. Apart from stating that the application is rejected as the Local Level Monitoring Committee decided not to exclude the land from Data Bank, no other reasons have been given in Ext.P4.

4. The petitioner states that the physical appearance of the land is that of a ‘Purayidam’. There are standing trees in the land. If a KSREC Report was obtained, it would have been evident that the land is not a paddy land any more and it is liable to be removed from the Land Data Bank.

5. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner’s application in Form-5 was rejected as per the recommendations of the LLMC. As per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , the LLMC is the competent authority in the matter of making any corrections or alterations in the Land Data Bank. The LLMC has inspected the site and has given the recommendation. The petitioner has not put forth any ground to interfere with Ext.P4.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

7. A reading of Ext.P4 would make it clear that it is an online rejection order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Apart from stating that LLMC has recommended not to exclude the petitioner’s land from Data Bank, no other reason is stated in Ext.P4. Application of mind by the competent authority is lacking. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner and considering Ext.P4, this Court is of the view that the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer shall reconsider the application afresh.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner afresh, after causing a site visit, if necessary, and take a decision in accordance with law, within a period of two months. If the petitioner makes an application for KSREC Report paying the prescribed fee, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider such application also and order shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of KSREC Report. To enable the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders afresh as directed above, Ext.P4 is set aside.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

hmh

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31469/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED

26/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COLOR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED

1/3/2022 IN FORM NO.5 FOR EXCLUSION OF EXTENT 8.09 ARES OF LAND COMPRISED IN SURVEY RE-SURVEY 39/1-10 (OLD SURVEY

343/1) OF KOLAZHI VILLAGE.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE ORDER PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31/07/2022 IN NO.7/2022/947261.

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL