Kerala High Court
Divya vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:57926
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. 44204 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DIVYA,
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O UNNIKRISHNAN, CHUNKATH HOUSE,
CHERUVALOOR PO, VALOOR, KALLUR THEKKUMMURI,
THRISSUR DT., PIN - 680308
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
SMT.AGI SHOBY
SMT.TINU WILSON
SMT.BUSHRA AHMAD KUTTY
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE RDO, AYYANTHOLE PO,
COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR, PIN - 690003
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
PIN - 680003
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERIGAVU VILLAGE, WOMENS CLUB ROAD,
CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR CITY, PIN - 680020
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE [LLMC]-
(WITHIN THE LOCAL LIMITS OF THRISSUR CORPORATION),
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
NEAR VAYANASALA BUS STOP, CHERUR,
VILVATTOM PO, THRISSUR DT., PIN - 680008
WP(C) NO.44204 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:57926
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NEAR VAYANASALA BUS STOP,
CHERUR, VILVATTOM PO,
THRISSUR DT., PIN - 680008
6 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
'C' BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.JESSY S. SALIM,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.08.2025,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.44204 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:57926
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5.26 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.1235/29-1 of Peringavu Village, Thrissur Taluk covered under Ext. P1 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.P2 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery, WP(C) NO.44204 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:57926 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. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, WP(C) NO.44204 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:57926 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.P3 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 the land as on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the property would WP(C) NO.44204 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:57926 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.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application in accordance with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner. WP(C) NO.44204 OF 2024 7
2025:KER:57926 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.44204 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:57926 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44204/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 10-6-2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 15-10-2022 FOR THE EXCLUSION OF LAND COMPRISED IN RE-SURVEY NO. 1235/29-1 OF PERINGAVU VILLAGE IN THRISSUR TALUK IN THRISSUR DISTRICT TO EXCLUDE AN EXTEND OF 5.26 ARES IE 13 CENTS OF LAND FROM THE FINALIZED DATA BANK EXHIBIT P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FILE NO. 1002/2024 DATED 19-9-2024 EXHIBIT P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 21-7-2023