The Revenue Divisional Officer must independently assess land status based on legal precedents when deciding on applications for exclusion from the Data Bank.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records related to Ext. P9 order No.5283/2024 dated 13.09.2024 of the

1^st respondent and quash the same.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus order or direction to the 2^nd respondent to re-consider Ext. P5 Form 5 Application 192/2023/1347511 dated 29.07.2023 submitted by the petitioner and to grant permission for change of user of the land.

iii. To issue any other writs order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of transaction of the vernacular documents”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 order passed by the 1^st respondent rejecting Ext.P5 Form – 5 application submitted by the petitioner in accordance to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 Form – 5 application on 29.07.2023.

The same was rejected as per Ext.P6 order. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8944 of 2024, and this Court set aside the same as per Ext.P7. Now, again the Form – 5 application was rejected as evident by Ext.P9 order. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Ext.P7 is the judgment rendered by this Court setting aside the original order rejecting the Form-5 application. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P7 judgment:

“5. 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 Act, 2008. Rule 4 (4E) of the Rules provides that, on receipt of the application in Form 5, the RDO shall call for a report from the Agricultural Officer in the case of paddy land and that of the Village Officer in the case of wetland. Rule 4(4F) provides that, on receipt of the report as above, the RDO shall, if deems necessary, verify the contents of the Data Bank by direct inspection or with the help of satellite images prepared by Central/State Scientific Technological Institutions and pass appropriate orders on the application. On a perusal of Ext.P5, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date of coming into force of the Act, 2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer to refuse to remove the property from the Data Bank.

6. This Court had held in the decision inArthasasthra 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, 2008 and also whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation or not. This Court, inMuraleedharan 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 the 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.

7. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (6) KHC 83 ], this Court has held that the predominant factor