Kerala High Court
A. A. Sasi vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 5 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16141 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
A. A. SASI
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. AYYAPPAN, ANNIEKAATUKUDI HOUSE,
ERAMALLOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683541
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
SRI.JOSE PAUL THOTTAM
SMT.FATHIMA RAZAK
SHRI.JIBYMON JOSEPH
SHRI.ASWIN ANILKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
GROUND FLOOR, PATTIMATTAM ROAD,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683541
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
, NELLIKUZHI KRISHI BHAVAN,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683541
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER -SRI.K.M.FAISAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.16141 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:58457
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.83 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.189/2 in Eramalloor Village, Kothamangalam Taluk, covered under Ext. P3 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land and is 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.P9 order, the authorised officer has partly rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery, WP(C) NO.16141 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:58457 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. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is contended that, the Agricultural Officer has examined the property and found that the same is lying below the road level and there is waterlogging. Therefore, the Agricultural Officer recommended not to exclude the property from the data bank.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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 WP(C) NO.16141 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:58457 been rejected without proper consideration or application of mind.
5. 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, 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.
6. A reading of Ext.P9 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 WP(C) NO.16141 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:58457 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 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 partial rejection of Form 5 application is vitiated due to errors of law and non-application of mind, and is liable to be quashed to the said extent. Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure prescribed under the law.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i). Ext. P9 order is quashed to the extend of partially rejecting Ext. P5 application. WP(C) NO.16141 OF 2025 6
2025:KER:58457
(ii). The first 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 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 ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/05.08.25 WP(C) NO.16141 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:58457 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16141/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING NO. 1901/1993 OF KOTHAMANGALAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE DATED 6.4.1993 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH IN RESPECT OF EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR 2024 TO 2025 DATED 3/10/2024 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA BANK EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20/2/2024 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4/9/2024.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1/7/2019.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/2/2020 ALLOWING THE CHANGE OF NATURE OF LAND OF BALANCE PROPERTY EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE FORM 5 APPLICATION IN RESPECT OF EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY DATED 11/9/2024