Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1394 (KER)

Thahani v. District Collector

2025-05-23

C.S.DIAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : C.S. Dias, J. The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 2 nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P5 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). 2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 7.61 Ares of land in Block No.3 of Survey Nos.142/4-2 and 142/4-4 of the Pappinivattom Village, Kodungallur Taluk, Thrissur District, covered by Ext.P1 title deeds and Ext.P3 land tax receipt. The petitioner’s property is a garden land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as paddy land and included it in the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application before the 2 nd respondent. The 2 nd respondent, based on the observations of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and without independently considering Ext.P5 application, has rejected the same by the impugned Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 is erroneous and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The petitioner’s specific case is that, her property is a garden land. The respondents have erroneously classified her property as paddy land and included it in the data bank. 5. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court has held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation, as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court in Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer ( 2023 (4) KHC 524 ), Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad ( 2023 (2) KLT 386 ) and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others ( 2021 (1) KLT 433 )). 6. A reading of Ext.P6 order, would establish that the 2 nd respondent has not independently assessed or verified the character of the petitioner’s property. Instead, the 2 nd respondent has, solely on the basis of the observations made by the LLMC, has passed the impugned order. 7. 6. A reading of Ext.P6 order, would establish that the 2 nd respondent has not independently assessed or verified the character of the petitioner’s property. Instead, the 2 nd respondent has, solely on the basis of the observations made by the LLMC, has passed the impugned order. 7. In Rasheed C v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector , [2025 KHC 1666], this Court has succinctly held that, a Form 5 application cannot be considered on the basis of the observations of the LLMC, since the procedure is not envisaged under the Act. The Rules only provide to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer to ascertain the character of the applicant’s property. If the Revenue Divisional Officer has any doubt in his mind, he can also direct the Agricultural Officer to call for a scientific report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) as contemplated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. 8. In the case at hand, it is without calling for any report from the 6 th respondent or without getting a report from the KSREC, the 2 nd respondent has blindly accepted the observations made by the LLMC. The course adopted by the 2 nd respondent is erroneous and untenable. Ext.P6 order is passed without any application of mind and the entire decision making process is vitiated and erroneous. Hence, I am convinced that Ext.P6 order is liable to be quashed and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, and after adverting to all the materials available on record. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner: (i). Ext.P6 order is quashed. (ii). The petitioner would be at liberty to file an application before the 6 th respondent, with a copy of this judgment, after depositing the requisite fee, to call for a report from the KSREC, to ascertain the nature, lie and character of the property; (iii). The 6 th respondent shall, immediately on receipt of the application, call for a report from the KSREC; and on receipt of the same, within four weeks forward the same with his report to the 2 nd respondent. (iv). The 6 th respondent shall, immediately on receipt of the application, call for a report from the KSREC; and on receipt of the same, within four weeks forward the same with his report to the 2 nd respondent. (iv). The 2 nd respondent/authorised officer shall reconsider Ext.P5 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a report from the 6 th respondent. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.