Prathap vs The District Collector

Murali Purushothaman, J

Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3, whereby Form 5 application submitted by him has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer.

Petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 8.57 Ares of land comprised in Sy. Nos.603/2-24 (4.52 Ares) and 603/2-25 (4.05 Ares) of Manavalassery Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District.

According to the petitioner, the said property will not come within the definition of paddy land or wetland. However, it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner, therefore, filed Ext.P2 application in Form 5 under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity, ‘the Act, 2008’]. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by Ext.P3 order, rejected the application solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer which states that Local Level Monitoring Committee has conducted an inspection and is convinced that the property is having the characteristics of Paddy Land and shall be retained in the data bank. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for KSREC.

The relevant consideration for inclusion of property as a 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.P3, it is evident that, without any independent assessment of the nature of property as on the coming into force of the Act, 2008, the 2nd respondent has relied solely upon the report of the Agricultural Officer to refuse to remove the property from the data bank. This Court had 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. Reliance upon the Agricultural Officer's report alone will not be sufficient while taking a decision.

Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P3, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application in Form No.5 and take a decision in the matter after calling for KSRSEC report at the expense of the petitioner, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of.