Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50464
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
T. P. RAJAGOPALAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 40276 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
For the Respondents: GP SMT DEEPA V
The court emphasized the necessity of an independent evaluation of land suitability before denying applications under conservation rules.
Headnote:The petitioner seeks to quash the order denying his request to exclude his land from the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The respondent rejected the application based on unverified observations without independent evaluation. The court found that prior judgments emphasized the requirement for actual assessment of the land's suitability for paddy cultivation before making any determination. The ruling allowed the petition, quashing the prior order and mandating a reconsideration of the application in accordance with required legal procedures.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition context and land classification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by the petitioner and respondents. (Para 4) |
| 3. claim regarding land suitability. (Para 5) |
| 4. judicial precedents on land evaluation. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner of the 1 hectare and 43.45 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.41/9-1 of Vaniyamkulam-I Village, Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad District, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Out of the said property, 33.10 Ares is classified as 'Nanja' in the revenue records and included in the data bank. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application to exclude the property from the data bank. The 2nd respondent, by solely relying on the observations of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2 application without any application of mind. Ext.P3 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, inter alia, stating that, in the LLMC meeting held on 07.10.2020, it was recommended to reject the petitioner's application, since the property is lying as barren land and is suitable for paddy cultivation. The property was not converted prior to 2008. If the is property is removed from the data bank, it would adversely affect the paddy cultivation and free flow of water. Therefore, the application is only to be rejected.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, his property is a garden land and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'Nanja' and included it in the data bank.
6. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, this Court has held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court inMuraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer ( 2023 (4) KHC 524 ) Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad ( 2023 (2) KLT 386 ) and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others ( 2021 (1) KLT 433 )).
7. A reading of Ext.P3 order would substantiate that the 2nd respondent has not independently evaluted the nature and classification of the petitioner's property. Instead, the 2nd respondent has solely based on the observations made by the LLMC, has come to the impugned conclusion.
8. In Rasheed C v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector ( 2025 KHC 1666 ), this Court has succinctly held that, a Form 5 application cannot be considered on the basis of the observations of the LLMC, since the said procedure is not contemplated under the Rules. The Rules only provide to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer or getting a scientific report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC).
9. As the 2nd respondent has reached his findings on and the basis of the LLMC report, and has not directly inspected the property or called for the satellite images as envisaged under 4(4f) of the Rules, I am satisfied that Ext.P3 order is to be quashed and the 2nd respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
(i). Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 5th respondent is directed to submit his report within one month from the date of prod
