Kerala High Court
Abish Nellikode vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 19589 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:60921
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. 19589 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
ABISH NELLIKODE,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O APPUTTY N MANIKYAM , RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673633,REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY,
APPUTTY,S/O AYYAPPAN N, NELLIKKOTTUKAVU ROAD,
RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE
BY ADV SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE,
KERALA, PIN - 673020
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,KRISHI BHAVAN ROAD,
RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673633
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
RAMANATTUKARA VILLAGE, RAMANATTUKARA,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673633
BY SMT.PREETHA K K, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19589 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:60921
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.72 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.334/2A (old Survey No.334/20) in Ramanattukara Village, Kozhikode Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 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.P4 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. 19589 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:60921 inspection of the land or calling for 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. 19589 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:60921 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.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 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. 19589 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:60921 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.P7 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. 19589 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:60921 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. 19589 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:60921 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19589/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 04/05/2023 OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 08/02/2018 OF RAMANATTUKARA MUNICIPALITY, EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CURRENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBITP3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CURRENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT-P3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CURRENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT-P3(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CURRENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO 5 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 01/03/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE KSREC DATED 3-11-2020 EXHIBIT-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15/07/22 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/08/23 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT