Kerala High Court
Bobby Joseph vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:60855
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. 43727 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BOBBY JOSEPH,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, PURAPPANTHANAM HOUSE,
RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., PALA,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576
BY ADVS.
SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
SHRI.RAJEEV V.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,1ST FLOOR,
CIVIL STATION RD, PALA,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ( PUNJA),
(AUTHORISED OFFICER),
COLLECTORATE KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF
KAROORGRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN,
VALAVOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686635
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER (KAROOR),
KRISHIBHAVAN, VALAVOOR,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686635
WP(C) NO.43727 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:60855
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VALLICHIRA ,THE VILLAGE OFFICE,
PALA ROAD, MARANGATTUPILLY,
VALLICHIRA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686574
6 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE(KSREC),
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, 1ST FLOOR,
VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K.,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
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.43727 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:60855
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 12.30 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 440/8 of Vallichira Village, Meenachil Taluk. The property is a converted plot and unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'wetland' 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.P5 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without directly inspecting the property. Even though the petitioner had remitted the prescribed fee, as evidenced by Ext. P3 receipt, to call WP(C) NO.43727 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:60855 for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, the authorised officer did not wait the satellite pictures. Ext. P5 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.43727 OF 2024 5
2025:KER:60855 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.P5 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. Instead, the authorised officer merely acted upon the reports of the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer, without rendering any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant WP(C) NO.43727 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:60855 date. Although the petitioner had submitted the prescribed fee to call the satellite pictures, the same was not considered by the authorised office. 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.P5 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application in accordance with law, WP(C) NO.43727 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:60855 as expeditiously as possible within 90 days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or consider the satellite pictures, which have been called for by the Agricultural Officer.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/13.08.2025 WP(C) NO.43727 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:60855 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43727/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THEPOSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 26.04.2023 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 23.08.2017 IN FAVOUR OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION DATED 28.04.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER FORM 5 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2024 BEARING FILE NUMBER 1304/2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT