Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2261 (KER)

Venkitesh v. Land Revenue Commissioner

2025-08-22

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs; "i) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to the 1 st respondent to take decision on Exhibit P10 within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble court. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to the 1 st respondent to consider Form 5 and Form 6 application of the petitioner and remove the entry of petitioner’s property from data Bank within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble court." 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner has title and possession over 4.05 Ares of property in Re.Sy.Nos.120/1-9-2 and 140/4-6-2 in Block No.48 of Marayoor Village, on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed dated 04.06.2018 bearing No.1223/1/2018 of S.R.O. Devikulam. The petitioner is residing in a rented house, and he purchased the above- mentioned property for constructing a house. The nature of the property is shown as Nilam in BTR. The nature of the property is shown as ’Karimbu’ in the Village records in Sl. No. 371 in Re- Survey No.140/4, under the name of the predecessors of the petitioner, namely Mayilswami Chettiar, S/o Muthuswami, Puthichivayal. The above-mentioned land had been converted much before the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. So the petitioner submitted Form 5 application invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, before the 2 nd respondent for removing the entry from the data bank and Form 6 application to make necessary changes in the revenue records. The 2 nd respondent has not considered the applications submitted by the petitioner. Then the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.33705 of 2022 before this Court and this Court disposed of that writ petition with a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner within two months and dispose Form 6 application within a further period of two months, depending upon the outcome of Exhibit P5 application. 2.1. The 2 nd Respondent considered the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner and rejected the same, vide order dated 30.09.2022, stating that the nature of the property of the petitioner is marked as Karimbu in the Data Bank. 2.1. The 2 nd Respondent considered the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner and rejected the same, vide order dated 30.09.2022, stating that the nature of the property of the petitioner is marked as Karimbu in the Data Bank. The petitioner challenged the order of the 2 nd respondent dated 30.09.2022 by filing W.P.(C) No.20661 of 2023, and this Court set aside the order and directed the 2 nd respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent discriminated the petitioner, vide Ext.P8 letter dated 20.07.2024, stating that the application submitted by the petitioner can only be considered after getting an order from the Government. The 2 nd respondent sent Ext.P10 communication dated 27.01.2021 to the 1 st respondent, requesting to suggest further actions to be taken in the similar applications received seeking conversion of the land as that of the instant case. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. 3. The 2 nd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 31.01.2025 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of that counter affidavit read thus: "2. It is submitted that the above writ petition is filed seeking a direction against the 1 st respondent to consider and pass orders on the Form and Form 6 applications preferred by the petitioner and to remove the Petitioner’s property from data bank. The petitioner is the owner of 04.05 Ares of land in Block-48 Resurvey No. 120/9-2, 140/4-6-2 in Marayoor Village. The said land is recorded as is ’Nilam’ in the BTR and sugar cane in the Data Bank. The petitioner had submitted an online Form-5 application for removing the said land from the Data Bank of Marayoor Grama panchayath. 3. It is submitted that the soil examination result shows that the said land is still suitable for paddy cultivation. In the Joint field verification also the land is found to be suitable for paddy cultivation. 4. It is submitted that the KSREC report also shows that paddy was cultivated in the said land during the period 2008. Based on the recommendation of LLMC, Joint verification, KSREC Report and Soil Examination Report, it is convinced that the said land falls under the definition of "Paddy Land" under Section 2(xii) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008. Based on the recommendation of LLMC, Joint verification, KSREC Report and Soil Examination Report, it is convinced that the said land falls under the definition of "Paddy Land" under Section 2(xii) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008. It is submitted that even though the said land is paddy land by nature, in the Data Bank it is entered as "Sugar Cane". The Hon. High court in W.P.(C)-20661 of 2023 had stated that "the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 is intended to protect paddy cultivation and wetlands and that it is not intended to protect sugar cane crops, and had directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders afresh. As such, based on the above fact finding this office issued proceedings removing the word "Sugar cane" from Data Bank, and directing the LLMC to correct the data bank as per KSREC report, 5. It is submitted that the land in question is classified as paddy land as of 2008, In accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008, any land that was converted after the enactment of the said Act in 2008 is ineligible for removal from the Data Bank maintained under the Act. It was in such circumstances, the form 5 application of the petitioner was rejected." 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in similar situations, by Exts.P5 and P6 judgments, this Court set aside the orders passed by the authorities concerned declaring the properties covered therein as not falling under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the applications submitted by the petitioners therein afresh. Merely for the reason that the nature of the property of the petitioner is shown as Karimbu in the village records, it cannot be inferred as Nilam, falling under the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the paddy lands are also shown as ‘Karimbu’ in the Data Bank. Therefore, the authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner. 7. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the paddy lands are also shown as ‘Karimbu’ in the Data Bank. Therefore, the authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner. 7. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader and also from the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent, we notice that the application filed by the petitioner to remove the property from the Data Bank in Form 5 was rejected by the 2 nd respondent. But, the petitioner did not produce that order before this Court. It is trite that, as on the date of coming into force of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, if the actual nature of the property is the one falling under those Rules, the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable, merely for the reason that the nature of the land is shown as ‘Karimbu’ in the revenue records. If the nature of the property is not the one falling under the provisions of the aforesaid rules as on the date notified by the Government, then definitely the claim of the petitioner will sustain. However, as mentioned above, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the 2 nd respondent. Therefore, without challenging that order, the writ petition is not maintainable. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, however, reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the order rejecting his application for removal of the property from the Data Bank, as stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent.