2025:KER:18441 WP(C) NO. 43513 OF 2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 43513 OF 2023 PETITIONER: DR. ANOOP KUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN. K. N., KOLANTHRA HOUSE, CHENTRAPINNI, PARAPOOKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM,THRISSUR, PIN - 680687 BY ADVS. SHAKTHI PRAKASH AMJATHA D.A. MUHASIN K.M. FARHANA K.H. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, CHEMMANDA ROAD,IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125 2025:KER:18441 WP(C) NO. 43513 OF 2023 2 3 THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, CHEMMANDA ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARAPPOKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTHRATHIKARA, PARAPPUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680310 5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, PARAPPOOKARA KRISHI BHAVAN, MUTHRATHIKARA, PARAPPUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680310 6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PARAPOOKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PARAPPUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680310 BY ADV ADV.AMMINIKUTTY K. SR.GP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:18441 WP(C) NO. 43513 OF 2023 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 6.27 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 41/2-2 of Parapookara Village in Mukundapuram Taluk of Thrissur District. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the said property stood reclaimed prior to the enactment of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Paddy Land Act’), the same was included in the Data Bank describing it as paddy land. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application in Form 5. However, as per Ext.P4 order, the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent by accepting the report of the Agricultural Officer, holding that, on two sides of the property there is water logging and on one side there is a water channel. Therefore, it was found that the property need not be removed from the Data Bank. Ext.P4 order is challenged in this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the 2nd 2025:KER:18441 WP(C) NO. 43513 OF 2023 4 respondent, wherein they have reiterated the findings in Ext.P4. 3. I have heard Sri.Shakthi Prakash and Smt.Amminikutty K., learned Government Pleader for the State. 4. The challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P4 is mainly on the ground that the relevant factors which were necessary for considering an application in Form 5 were not taken into account while passing the Ext.P4 order, and instead, the order was passed simply accepting the report of the Agricultural Officer. On carefully going through the contents of Ext.P4, I find that there is some merit in the said contention. In Ext.P4 order, apart from the fact that the report of the Agricultural Officer was referred to and accepted, no independent assessment has been made by the 2nd respondent, which was a mandatory requirement for considering an application in Form 5. Besides, even though the report of the Agricultural Officer contains an observation that there are water bodies near to the boundaries of the property of the petitioner, apparently the said report does not contain any 2025:KER:18441 WP(C) NO. 43513 OF 2023 5 assessment, as to whether the property is fit for paddy cultivation or not. Further, the scientific data in the form of the satellite images of the KSREC was also not utilized while arriving at the said conclusion. The petitioner has produced Ext.P5, which is the report of the KSREC indicating the same, which was obtained by the petitioner after the order is passed. 5. On going through Ext.P5 report, it can be seen that the property bordered by a water body in east side was observed as fallow land in the data of year 2006 and 2010. Scattered trees were also observed in the data of year 2016 and 2019. In Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakkuda [2023 (6) KHC 83], it was observed that an application in Form 5 cannot be rejected without entering into a finding that it is feasible and viable to cultivate the land with paddy in the land in question. Moreover, in Sudheesh U v. Reveneue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KHC 505], this Court specifically laid down the legal proposition that merely because the property is lying as 2025:KER:18441 WP(C) NO. 43513 OF 2023 6 fallow, it cannot be treated as a paddy land unless the authority is convinced that the property is fit for paddy cultivation. Besides, it was also held that, while considering an application, the RDO has to conduct an enquiry on his own and by issuing an order by simply accepting the report of the Agricultural Officer is not proper. Moreover, in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591], this Court while considering the parameters to be considered while disposing of an application in Form 5 the following observations were made: “8. This Court is of the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not justified in taking a decision on merits on the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5. The most relevant aspect while considering 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. The Revenue Divisional Officer, if he was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSREC. Ext.P8 proceedings to the extent it does not take a final decision on Form-5 application cannot stand the scrutiny of law.” 6. Thus, when considering Ext.P4 order in the light of the observations made by this Court in the above referred judgments, 2025:KER:18441 WP(C) NO. 43513 OF 2023 7 I find that, a proper enquiry as required to be conducted by the 2nd respondent has not been done. Ext.P4 order was passed simply accepting the report of the Agricultural Officer, which itself does not contain an answer to the question whether the property was fit for paddy cultivation or not. As observed above, the 2nd respondent was bound to conduct an independent assessment of all the materials. As far as the report of the Agricultural Officer is concerned, it is one of the several documents which is to be taken into account while taking a decision on the application. In other words, the contents of the report of the Agricultural Officer, cannot be accepted as such, if there are other reliable materials contrary to the same. Therefore, I am of the view that, Ext.P4 requires reconsideration. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P4, with a direction to the 2nd respondent or the authorized officer under Section 2(xvA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to reconsider 2025:KER:18441 WP(C) NO. 43513 OF 2023 8 Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner and take a fresh decision on the same, in the light of the observations made by this Court and also in the judgments referred to above. Such an order shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs 2025:KER:18441 WP(C) NO. 43513 OF 2023 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43513/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.12.2021 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 10.01.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LLMC Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B2- 4717/2019 R.D IS DATED 27.05.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF KSREC DATED 28.09.2022 Exhibit P6 COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY