Kerala High Court
R. Chithra vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 4023 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:60928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4023 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
R. CHITHRA,
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. RATHNAVEL, RAJESWARI BHAVANAM, MEENA NAGAR,
KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.VENKATESH
SMT.ASHA P.KURIAKOSE
SMT.LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, MARUTHARODE,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 4023 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:60928
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0607 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.103/51 in Block No.38 in Marutharod Village, Palakkad Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 and P2 title deeds. 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.P3 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for WP(C) NO. 4023 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:60928 the satellite pictures as 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 unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's principal contention is that the applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected the same without proper consideration or application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of this Court -- including the decisions in Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue WP(C) NO. 4023 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:60928 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 authorised officer 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 is to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 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 personally inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer without rendering 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 WP(C) NO. 4023 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:60928 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 circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the property or calling for the satellite pictures as provided under 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 WP(C) NO. 4023 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:60928 hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the property personally, the application shall be 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 NAB WP(C) NO. 4023 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:60928 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4023/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED GIFT DEED NO.
1113/2016 DATED 7.2.2016 OF SRO PALAKKAD EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PRIOR DEED, REGISTERED SALE DEED NO. 4982/1999 DATED 29.10.1999 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF FORM -5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.12.2023 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2025 THE RDO HAS REJECTED EXT P3 APPLICATION BEARING FILE NO. 147/2023 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2022 IN FILE NO. 966/2022 PASSED BY THE RDO, PALAKKAD