The Revenue Divisional Officer must independently assess land status when considering applications for removal from the Data Bank under the applicable Act.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exhibit P1 order.

ii. Declare that the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act do not apply to the petitioner’s property covered by Exhibit P3 sale deed.

iii. Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including the one dispensing with the filing of the English translation of vernacular documents/Exhibits.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner filed a Form-5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and the same was rejected, as evident by Ext.P2. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing WP(C) No.4251/2024. Ext.P2 order was set aside by this Court and directed to reconsider the matter by a detailed judgment. Thereafter Ext.P1 order is passed, again dismissing the application. Hence this writ petition.

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

4. This Court perused the first order passed in the Form-5 application, as evident by Ext.P2. It is not a speaking order. That is why this Court interfered with the same as per Ext.P6 judgment. It will be better to extract Ext.P6 judgment:

“The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1 whereby Form 5 application submitted by her has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer.

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of 0.0329 Hectares of land in Sy. No.736/P of Killanur Village, Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District.

3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property will not come within the ambit of paddy land or wet land as defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2008’). However, it is stated that the property is wrongly included in the Data Bank as paddy land. The petitioner filed an application in Form 5 of Rule

4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to remove the said land from the Data Bank. The same has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Ext.P1 stating that, as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the land does not have any trees and is found to be barren and the LLMC has recommended not to exclude the land from Data Bank. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 contending, inter alia, that the same is vitiated by non application of mind and is against the provisions of the Act, 2008 and the binding precedents of this Court.

4. 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. On a perusal of Ext.P1, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the date 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.

5. 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,