WP(C)/24736/2024 of C. V. JOY, Vs REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO), on 2 April 2025

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 2.83 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.415 in Kallur Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District. The grievances of the petitioner are against Exts.P6 and P8 orders passed by the 1st respondent, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5. According to the petitioner, the said property stood reclaimed even prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act and despite the same, the property was included as ‘Nilam’ in the data bank. Ext.P5 Form 5 application was submitted in such circumstances. Initially, Ext.P6 order was passed, rejecting the application of the petitioner. However, as the same was passed without taking into account of the KSREC report, the petitioner submitted an application before the Agricultural Officer by paying necessary fees for the same, as evidenced by Ext.P7. After obtaining the KSREC report, Ext.P8 order was passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the said application. This writ petition is submitted challenging the same.

2. I have heard Smt.Vidya A.C, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Preetha K.K, the learned Government Pleader.

3. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Exts.P6 and P8 orders are non speaking orders and those do not contain any independent assessment/enquiry of the 1st respondent. Infact, the 1st respondent was simply accepting the report of the Agricultural Officer, which conveyed the decision of LLMC.

4. After perusing the impugned orders, I find merits in the said submission. As far as Exts.P6 and P8 orders are concerned, absolutely no reasons are mentioned in support of the findings entered into by the 1st respondent, rejecting the application in Form 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1st respondent simply accepted the report of the Agricultural Officer, through which the decision of the LLMC not to exclude the property of the petitioner was conveyed. Such a procedure is not contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, as the 1st respondent was supposed to conduct an independent enquiry taking note of all relevant aspects. The report of the Agricultural Officer is only one among the said documents. In this case, even though KSREC report was also obtained, absolutely there is no reference of the same in Ext.P8 order and instead, the conclusion arrived at by the LLMC based on the KSREC report was simply adopted. Yet another aspect to be noticed is that, as per the statutory provisions, what is relevant for consideration for Form 5 application is the report of the Agricultural Officer and not that of the LLMC. While submitting the report, the Agricultural Officer himself has to conduct an independent enquiry and submit a fact finding report as to the nature of the property but in this case, the Agricultural Officer reported the decision taken by the LLMC on 05.12.2023. In none of the provisions in the Act, such a procedure is contemplated. Apart from the above, the 1st respondent ought not to have simply accepted the report of the LLMC himself and arrived at a conclusion and instead an independent enquiry ought to have conducted. Such an exercise is also not seen in this case. In such circumstances an interference is required.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P6 and P8, with a direction to the 1st respondent or the authorised officer under Section 2(XVA) of Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 to reconsider Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, by conducting an independent enquiry as to the nature of the property of the petitioner taking note of the report of the Agricultural Officer, the KSREC report and other relevant materials. It is further ordered that, the 2nd respondent, Agricultural Officer shall submit a fresh report by conducting an independent enquiry before the 1st respondent or the authorised officer. Such a report shall be submitted by the Agricultural Officer within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and there upon the 1st respondent or the authorised officer shall pass fresh orders on the Ext.P5 Form 5 application of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such report from the Agricultural Officer. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

STB

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24736/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2795/2017 DATED 15.12.2017 NELLAYI SRO, THRISSUR DISTRICT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY KALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 23.04.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENTIAL/OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO MRS. KANAKA VALLIYAMMA FOR BUILDING NO. I/139A DATED 09.03.2006 BY THRIKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.11.2020 OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK OF THRIKKUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM-5 DATED 08.11.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2023 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RDO IRINJALAKKUDA Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TREASURY, IRINJALAKKUDA FOR PAYMENT TOWARDS PROCESSING FEE OF DATA BANK STATUS Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT