Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 196 (KER)

Roy M. Mathew v. Agricultural Officer

2024-02-15

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : The property of the petitioner is included in the Data Bank published under the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Act, 2008']. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 [for brevity, 'the Rules, 2008'] before the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to remove the said property from the Data Bank. Since there was delay in considering the said application, he filed WP(C) No.38214 of 2023 seeking direction to the RDO to consider and pass orders on Ext. P2. This Court, by Ext.P3 judgment dated 17.11.2023, disposed of the said writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P2 Form 5 application in accordance with law, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner states that, pursuant to Ext. P2 application, the RDO called for a report from the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC). According to the petitioner, he came to know that there are divergent views among the members of the Committee, and therefore, a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre [for short, ‘the KSRSEC’] has to be called for before disposing of Ext. P2 application to ascertain the exact nature of the land. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed for a direction to the Agricultural Officer and the RDO to call for report of the KSRSEC to ascertain the true nature of the subject land before passing orders on Ext. P2. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for KSRSEC. 3. Rule 4 of the Rules, 2008 deals with preparation of Data Bank. Rule 4(4d) provides that, if any person is aggrieved by inclusion of property in the Data Bank, he can submit an application under Form 5 before the RDO. Under Rule 4(6), he can also approach the LLMC to make changes in the Data Bank. Thus, under Rules, 2008, a person who is aggrieved by an entry in the Data Bank can either approach the RDO or the LLMC for appropriate correction or for removal of his land from the Data Bank. 4. Under Rule 4(6), he can also approach the LLMC to make changes in the Data Bank. Thus, under Rules, 2008, a person who is aggrieved by an entry in the Data Bank can either approach the RDO or the LLMC for appropriate correction or for removal of his land from the Data Bank. 4. Rule 4(8) of the Rules, 2008 provides that, on receipt of an application under Rule 4(6), the LLMC shall consider the same and make appropriate corrections in the Data Bank, after causing an inspection and after perusing the satellite picture of the property as on 12.08.2008 and after that date. 5. Rule 4(4E)(4D) of the Rules, 2008 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) (4E) 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 Centre/State Scientific Technological institutions and pass appropriate orders on the application. On a reading of the above Rules, it can be seen that it is not mandatory for the RDO to call for report from the KSRSEC (nodel agency of the State Government) in all Form 5 applications received. If the RDO deems it appropriate, he may conduct a local inspection or call for satellite images in respect of the land and take appropriate decision on the application. However, if an application is received under Rule 4(6) by the LLMC, it has to conduct a local inspection to find out the lie and nature of the land and also take steps to obtain the satellite images of the land as mandated by Rule 4 (8). 6. In this case, Ext.P2 application in Form 5 is submitted before the RDO. This Court has, in Ext.P3 judgment, directed the RDO to consider Ext.P2 application in accordance with law. After receiving the report of the Agricultural Officer, if the RDO deems necessary, he may conduct a local inspection or call for satellite images in respect of the land and pass an order on Ext.P2.This Court cannot, at this stage, direct the RDO to call for report of the KSRSEC. After receiving the report of the Agricultural Officer, if the RDO deems necessary, he may conduct a local inspection or call for satellite images in respect of the land and pass an order on Ext.P2.This Court cannot, at this stage, direct the RDO to call for report of the KSRSEC. If the order is not in accordance with law, the petitioner can challenge the same appropriately. The writ petition does not call for any interference at this stage and is dismissed.