2025:KER:19570 WP(C) No.21390 OF 2024 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. 21390 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: KANHIROLI LAILA, AGED 63 YEARS W/O.HABEEB ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT HASLU,V.K. KRISHNA MENON ROAD, PANNIYANKARA,PO. KALLAI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673003 BY ADVS. V.V.SURENDRAN P.A.HARISH DONA PAUL SANIKA.V.S. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, PO. CIVIL STATION,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHELAVOOR VILLAGE,OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PO. CHELAVOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673571 3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION,OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004 OTHER PRESENT: Smt.Deepa.V, G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:19570 WP(C) No.21390 OF 2024 2 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent by which the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5 was rejected. The said application was submitted by the petitioner seeking removal of her property having an extent of 8.632 Ares comprised in Re.Sy. No.191/4B of Chelavoor Village in Kozhikode Taluk from the Data Bank. According to her, the property stood reclaimed much prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter after referred to as ‘Paddy Land Act’), and therefore, it is an erroneous entry. However, as the said application is rejected as per Ext.P7, this writ petition is filed challenging the said order. 2. A statement is filed on the behalf of the 1st respondent wherein they have incorporated averments to justify the findings entered into in Ext.P7 order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for the respondents. One of the crucial contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the property stood reclaimed even 2025:KER:19570 WP(C) No.21390 OF 2024 3 prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act and the same is evident from Exts.P4 and P5. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode, on the application submitted by the petitioner in the year 1995 under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order wherein the petitioner sought permission to utilise the said property for non-agricultural purposes. While processing the said application, the Village Officer submitted Ext.P5 report before the 1st respondent, wherein it was specifically observed as follows:- “ ഈസ്ഥലം വില്ലേജ് റെല്ലേ ോർഡ് പ്രകോരം ഇരുപുകില്‌ നിലമോറെങ്കിലും, വളറെര ോലമോയി റെനൽകൃഷിറെ"യ്യോൻ കഴിയോറെ& മി വോറും സ്ഥലം റെവള്ളവും മണ്ണും ഒലിച്ചുവന്നു കൃഷിറെ"യ്യോൻ പറ്റോത്തവിധം മോിയിരിക്കുന്നു” 4. On the basis of the same, Ext.P4 order was passed by the 1st respondent by which the petitioner was granted permission to utilise 10 cents of land for the purpose of constructing a house. However, the petitioner could not construct the building on the property. Thereafter, as the property was erroneously included in the data bank, the present application was submitted and it culminated in Ext.P7. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, these crucial aspects were not considered 2025:KER:19570 WP(C) No.21390 OF 2024 4 while passing Ext.P7 order. Therefore, Ext.P7 has to be interfered with. 5. After carefully going through the contents of Ext.P7 order and considering the same in the light of Ext.P4 and P5, I find some merits in the said submissions. Going through Ext.P7 order, it is seen that, in the report submitted by the Agriculture Officer, it was mentioned that, there are 12 coconut trees having an age of 15 years. But yet, a decision has been taken apparently on the reason that, there is paddy land on the southern and western sides of the property. However, even while arriving at the said findings, most crucial aspect, as to whether property of the petitioner was fit for paddy cultivation was not seen considered. Going by the definition of the ‘Paddy Land’ as contained under Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act, in order to treat a property as a paddy land, it must be a property where paddy cultivation was being carried out once in a year or the property must be fit for paddy cultivation as on the date of enactment of the Paddy Land Act. 6. In this case, no attempt has been made to find out whether the property of the petitioner is fit for paddy cultivation as on the said date. When considering the said 2025:KER:19570 WP(C) No.21390 OF 2024 5 question, the existence of the coconut trees and other trees referred to in the order becomes relevant. Unless the authority concerned is satisfied that the property in question had all the characteristics and features of a Paddy Land as defined under Sec. 2(xii), a decision cannot be taken to retain the property in the Data Bank. Therefore, the absence of such a finding necessitates an interference in the order passed by the authority concerned. 7. Apart from the above, the report made by the Village Officer as evidenced by Ext.P5 as early as on 22.06.1995 while processing the application which led to Ext.P4 order, is also a matter of crucial importance. The Ext.P5 report specifically indicates that the property is not fit for paddy cultivation. This aspect was also not seen to taken into account in Ext.P7. Yet another discrepancy revealed from the records is that property is included in the Data Bank as 'Nanja'. As far as the property described as Nanja is concerned, the report ought to have been obtained from the Village Officer, for the purpose of processing an application in Form-5, whereas Ext.P7 order was passed after obtaining a report from the Agriculture Officer. This is also a crucial aspect which has to be taken into account 2025:KER:19570 WP(C) No.21390 OF 2024 6 while considering the sustainability of the Ext.P7 order. 8. Moreover, Ext.P7 does not contain an independent assessment of the 1st respondent and instead, the report submitted by the Agriculture Officer was simply accepted. As far as the report of the Agriculture Officer or the Village Officer called for as part of the enquiry is concerned, it can only be treated as one of the documents, to be considered, while an independent assessment as to the nature of the property is being made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, or the Authorised Officer and if there are other materials indicating a possibility of taking a contrary view, the Revenue Divisional Officer can take such a decision. Here, Ext.P5 is a document of the said nature, which ought to have been taken into account while taking a decision. In such circumstances, Ext.P7 order cannot be treated as a proper order in tune with the requirements of the Act for the reasons mentioned above, and thus, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P7, 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 2025:KER:19570 WP(C) No.21390 OF 2024 7 reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner after obtaining a report from the 2nd respondent Village Officer with regard to the nature of the property. While considering the application, the contents of the Ext.P5 order shall also be taken into account. Moreover the fact that, 10 cents of the property was already permitted to be converted as per Ext.P4 order which is not reflected in Ext.P7 order, shall also be taken into consideration while passing the order. Appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, shall be passed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE SM/1903 2025:KER:19570 WP(C) No.21390 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21390/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JENMAM ASSIGNMENT DEED NO. 1858/1982 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, CHEVAYOOR DATED 16.07.1982 EXECUTED BY KOYAMMED HAJI IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO. KL11010402440/2024 DATED 29.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 3776/2022 DATED 12.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.07.1995 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 22.6.1995 Exhibit P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.06.2023 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED 25.11.2022 ISSUED BY DR. M.V. BIJU, DEPARTMENT OF NEPHROLOGY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE