W.P.(C) No.16809 of 2022 1 2025:KER:26414 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 16809 OF 2022 PETITIONER: KHADEEJA,AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. ALI, NADUVILAKANDI HOUSE, POOVATTUPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE - 673008. BY ADVS. RENI JAMES C.R.REKHA(K/854/2001),MICHAEL.M.WILSON(M-462) T.A.MARY RINJU(K/287/2014) RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673020 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673020. 3 THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673020. 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIKKATTOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, VELLIPARAMBA POST, KUTTIKKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE - 673008. 5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PERUVAYAL KRISHIBHAVAN, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE - 673008. OTHER PRESENT: GP- NIMA JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.16809 of 2022 2 2025:KER:26414 VIJU ABRAHAM, J. ................................................................. W.P.(C) No.16809 of 2022 ................................................................. Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 5th respondent whereby the request of the petitioner to remove the property from the data bank has been rejected. 2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the subject property lying as a garden land is not suitable for paddy cultivation and the property has been mentioned as ‘nilam’ in the revenue records, however the property has been included in the data bank as ‘wet land’. It is contended that the property of the petitioner is situated in a pucca industrial area where there are many industrial ventures and the busiest Calicut-Mavoor road is running through the southern side of the subject property and the land has been converted with trees aged 30-40 and a Panchayat road is also running through the eastern and northern side of the property. Petitioner submits that the property is included as ‘nilam’ in the revenue records and inclusion of the same in the data bank as ‘wetland’ is absolutely erroneous and the property being converted prior to the coming into force of the Act 2008 the property ought not to have been included in Ext.P3 data bank. In view of the above petitioner has approached the 5th respondent with an appropriate request to remove the property from the W.P.(C) No.16809 of 2022 3 2025:KER:26414 data bank which has been rejected by Ext.P5 order. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent wherein the stand of the Government is that the property has been included as paddy land, wetland and area converted category and the application submitted by the petitioner has been considered in detail and after conducting a joint inspection it was found that the property has not been converted before 2008. The 5th respondent also relies on a KSRSEC report received on 20.12.2024 to contend that the property is not converted before 2008. 4. This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others, 2017 (1) KHC 394 has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala, 2020 (5) KHC 490 has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433 it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222 has held that the most relevant aspect while considering W.P.(C) No.16809 of 2022 4 2025:KER:26414 Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. This court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (4) KLT 270 has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from the Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to remove the land from Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer being the competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the land and come to a conclusion that removal of the land from Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question or in the nearby paddy lands or that it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. Further, this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2023 (5) KLT 432 has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible. 5. In spite of these categorical declaration by this Court in a catena of judgments as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioner W.P.(C) No.16809 of 2022 5 2025:KER:26414 has been rejected. A perusal of Ext.P5 report would reveal that none of the parameters for considering an application for removal of the property from the data bank has been considered. Further, no reliance is placed on the KSRSEC report and admittedly Ext.P5 order has been issued without looking into the KSRSEC report, which is received only on 20.12.2024. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order is set aside with a consequential direction to the 5th respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner. Petitioner will be free submit her notes of argument highlighting all the contentions including the relevant judgments relied on by her. A fresh decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE cks W.P.(C) No.16809 of 2022 6 2025:KER:26414 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16809/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.03.2021. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK OF KUTTIKKATTOOR VILLAGE. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 591/1987 SRO, CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KBPVL-21/19- 20 DATED 24.09.2020.