2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 PETITIONER: AMINA KUNJUMON, AGED 64 YEARS W/O KUNJUMON, PUTHYAVEETIL HOUSE, THAVALAKKULAM P.O, VELIYANCODE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679579 BY ADVS. ASADU AHMMED CHULLINTE MEHNA IBRAHIM RESPONDENTS: 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM ,KERALA, PIN - 676101 2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE VELIANCODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KRISHIBHAVAN, VELIYANCODE,VELIYANCODE P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679581 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELIANCODE VILLAGE OFFICE, GRAMAM ROAD, VELIYANCODE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679580 2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 2 4 VELIYANCODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VELIYANCODE P O.,MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679581 BY ADV SMT.AMMINIKUTTY.K, SR.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 3 JUDGMENT This writ petition is submitted by a senior citizen, who is a widow, being aggrieved by the rejection of application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 as evidenced by Ext.P5. The facts which led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession land having an extent of 1.21 Ares comprised in Sy.No.20/2-8 of Block No.001 of Veliyankode Village in Ponnani Taluk. The petitioner has already constructed a single storied building which is in a dilapidated condition on account of its old age. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application for financial assistance for reconstruction of her building under Life Mission Scheme 2020 of the 4th respondent, the Veliyancode Grama Panchayat. Ext.P3 is the certificate issued by the 4th respondent, to that effect. Only at that point of time it was 2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 4 noticed that, the property was included in the Data Bank as ‘wetland’ prepared under the provision of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Paddy land Act). Therefore, the petitioner was required to obtain necessary orders for removing the property from the Data Bank and therefore, she submitted Ext.P4 application in Form 5. However, the same was rejected as per Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st respondent. This writ petition is submitted by her in such circumstances challenging Ext.P5. 3. I have heard Sri.Asadu Ahmmed Chullinte, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Amminikutty K. learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Rajit, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent. 4. One of the main contentions raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P5 is a nonspeaking order and the fact that there 2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 5 was a building in the said property was not taken into account while passing the order impugned in this case. On perusal of the records, I find that, there is some force in the said submission. As far as Ext.P5 is concerned, the same was passed, merely acting upon the report of the Agricultural Officer and without making an independent assessment by the 1st respondent. Even going by the observations in Ext.P5, it can be seen that, in the report, the Agricultural Officer only stated that, LLMC has taken a decision to retain the property in the Data Bank as according to them, if the property is removed from the Data Bank, it is likely to affect the paddy cultivation and the free flow of water to said property. However, the crucial aspect as to whether there was a residential building on the property as on the date of enactment of the Paddy Land Act, was not taken into account. Besides, as mentioned above, apart from simply accepting the report of the Agricultural 2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 6 Officer, which conveyed the decision of the LLMC, no other aspects are specified in the impugned order. 5. Going by the statutory stipulations, the report ought to have been submitted by the Agricultural Officer, by conducting an independent enquiry, instead of simply resorting to the decision taken by the LLMC. As far as the consideration of a Form 5 application is concerned, the same has to be made by the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Authorized Officer after obtaining a report from the Agricultural Officer as contemplated under Rule 4(4)(e). The said provision does not contemplate for a decision taken after calling for a report of LLMC and what is contemplated is the report of the Agricultural Officer. Since there is no reference of any decision of LLMC, it is the obligation on the part of the Agricultural Officer to conduct an enquiry of his own, without depending upon any other reports of any authorities and thereafter, a report of his 2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 7 conclusions, have to be forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, which has to be taken into account and a decision has to be taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer/ Authorized Officer by taking note of all relevant factors as contemplated under the Act. The factors which are to be taken into account by the Revenue Divisional Officer/ Authorized Officer would include the question whether the property which is the subject matter is having the characteristics and features of a paddy land as defined under Section 2(xii) or the wetland as defined under Section 2(xviii) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 6. When it comes to the question of paddy land, the Revenue Divisional Officer has to take into account whether the property is the one where cultivation of paddy was being carried out at least once in a year and if it is concluded that no such cultivation was being made, it has to be verified whether 2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 8 the property was suitable for paddy cultivation but, remained uncultivated and fallow. These are the matters which are to be examined for deciding an application in Form 5, instead of simply relying on a report of the Agricultural Officer, who in turn simply forwarded the decision taken by the LLMC, without making any independent assessment of his own. Therefore, under no circumstances, the present order can be upheld. 7. Apart from the above, it is also a fact that, the petitioner has a specific case that, there is a building in the property, which is 31 years old. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that, the existence of the building is not mentioned in Ext.P2 sale deed. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Ext.P7 certificate issued by the Veliyancode Grama Panchayat stating that the building owned by the petitioner is 31 years old. Anyway, these are all matters to be taken into account by the Revenue Divisional 2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 9 Officer/ Authorized Officer. 8. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5 order, with a direction to the 1st respondent or the Authorized Officer under Section 2(xvA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, to reconsider Ext.P4 application, in the light of the observations made by this Court including the consideration of question as to whether any building was in existence prior to the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 or not. Such consideration is necessary because, the existence of the building prior to the enactment, would lead to a strong inference in favour of the petitioner, particularly because, the total extent of the property is 1.21 Ares only. In such circumstances, a decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 10 The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a further apprehension that, the amount received as financial assistance from the Government through the 4th respondent, under Life Mission Scheme will get elapsed on 31.03.2025. It is discernible from the records that, the only legal impediment that stands in the way of the petitioner from utilizing the said amount for the property, is the inclusion of the property in the Data Bank and the proceedings for removal of the same is in progress. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to keep the amount allotted to the petitioner under Life Mission Scheme, to the petitioner, in a separate account to avoid the consequences including the fund getting elapsed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs 2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 11 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12965/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO. KL10031106793/2023 DATED 27.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELIYANODE VILLAGE, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1460/2012 OF SRO, PONANNI DATED 05.03.2012 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.07.2023 ISSUED BY VELIYANCODE GRAM PANCHAYAT REGARDING INTIMATION OF LIFE MISSION SCHEME 2020 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 27.07.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: 3265/2024 DATED 22.02.2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, RDO, ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING AGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FILE NO:5099301/346/2024 DATED 6.12.2024 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE 2025:KER:27109 WP(C) NO. 12965 OF 2025 12 NATURE OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY LAND IDENTIFICATION DETAILS DATED 29.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO: LSGD- RA1/57/2025-LSGD DATED 11.02.2025