Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
PARVATHI – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 25805 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.A.JOHNSON
For the Respondents: GP- NIMMY JOHNSON
The court emphasized the importance of a thorough assessment before rejecting a Form 5 application regarding land classification.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the rejection of a Form 5 application pertaining to the removal of land from a data bank. The court found that the rejection ignored relevant aspects like prior permits and necessary inspections. It ruled that the Revenue Divisional Officer must reconsider the application with proper evaluation of the land status. The judgment frames the main issues regarding land classification and the applicable procedural adherence. The core reasoning emphasizes the requirement for a detailed assessment as per established jurisprudence regarding land classification.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner contests rejection of application regarding land classification. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent states procedural adherence in issuing rejection. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court notes deficiencies in the procedural assessment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. citations reinforce the need for rigorous consideration of land status. (Para 8) |
| 5. court orders reconsideration of form 5 application with appropriate evaluations. (Para 9) |
| 6. final ruling directs further inquiries and findings. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order whereby the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. Petitioner submits that he has in absolute ownership and possession of 0.0809 hector of land in Re-survey No. 229/21(229/10) in Block No. 12 of Kuthanur-I Village, Alathur Taluk in Palakkad district. Though, the property has been classified as ‘Nilam’, as per the revenue records, it was kept as “barren land” without any cultivation for the last so many years and thereupon the Local Level Monitoring Committee after a detailed enquiry decided not to include the petitioner’s property in the Data Bank. Thereupon, petitioner applied for permission for construction of a residential building, whereby Ext. P3 permit was granted, permitting the petitioner to construct a residential building not exceeding 300 square meters. While the petitioner started construction of the building on the strength of Ext.P3 and the same was interdicted by the 4th respondent by issuance of Ext.P6 stop memo. On enquiry, it is revealed that the property has been subsequently included in the Data Bank. Thereupon, petitioner submitted an application in form No. 5 for removing the property from the Data Bank, which was rejected as per Ext.P7. Petitioner submitted that none of the parameters for considering an application for removal from the data bank has been undertaken by the Revenue Divisional Officer while issuing Ext.P7.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that, on enquiry, it was found that the property is a paddy land, and thereupon, it was later included in the data bank, and only after due enquiry, Ext. P7 order was issued, and there is no reason to interfere with the same.
4. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides.
5. Admittedly, property is covered by Ext.P3 permit granted by the local authority for construction of a building not exceeding 300 square meters. Further in at the time of issuance of Ext.P3 order, the property was not included in the data bank. Further, permission was granted as per Ext.P3 for construction of the building for residential purposes. It is without considering any of these aspects that Ext.P7 has been issued.
6. Further, no KSRSEC report is called for, no site inspection has been conducted, and order has been issued only relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer.
7. This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v.
State of Kerala and Others, 2017 (1) KHC 394 has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further, in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala , 2020 (5) KHC 490 has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector , 2021 (1) KLT 433 it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222 has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into fo
