Kerala High Court
K.C.Shibu vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:57914
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 11944 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
K.C.SHIBU,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. LATE K. V. CHAKKAPPAN,
RESIDING AT KOCHERY HOUSE, KANGARAPADY,
COCHIN, PIN - 682021
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANEESH JAMES
SHRI.JIJO THOMAS
SMT.M.D.BEENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.),
ERNAKULAM,CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
COCHIN, PIN - 682030
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE,VILLAGE OFFICE,
PADIVATTOM P.O.,COCHIN, PIN - 682024
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KALAMASSERY,KANGARAPADY,
COCHIN, PIN - 682021
5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
KALAMASSERY, PIN - 682021
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.11944 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:57914
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.465 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 385/4-3 and 385/4-2-3 of Thrikkakara North Village, Kanayannur Taluk covered under Ext. P2 land tax receipt. The property is a converted plot and unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules", for brevity). To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P7 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal WP(C) NO.11944 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:57914 inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery, as specifically mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 -- the date the Act came into force. The impugned order, therefore, is arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has been rejected without proper consideration or application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v. WP(C) NO.11944 OF 2025 4
2025:KER:57914 Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent authority is obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property merits exclusion from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P7 order reveals that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has directly inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of WP(C) NO.11944 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:57914 the land as on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the impugned order was passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated due to errors of law and non-application of mind, and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure prescribed under the law.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P7 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application in accordance with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call WP(C) NO.11944 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:57914 for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
iii. If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to personally inspect the property, the application shall be considered and disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/04.08.25 WP(C) NO.11944 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:57914 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11944/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 . A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
3575/2014 OF EDAPPALLY SRO Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 01.03.2024 IN RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK OF KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY RELATING TO EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY PUBLISHED IN 2016 AND ATTESTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER Exhibit P4 . A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATE BANK OF KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY PUBLISHED ON 05.02.2021 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.07.2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C) NO. 23774/2024 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2541/2024 DATED 24/10/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 . A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-
4245/2021 DATED 14.01.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 . A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
RDOCHN/4245/2020-K2 DATED 14.12.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT