Kerala High Court
Kannan M vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 15 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52158
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
KANNAN M,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. MANI, RESIDING AT 'DEVI SADHAN',
VADAKKANTHARA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678012
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
SMT.ANJANA A.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VIDYUT NAGAR,
PARAKKUNAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE PIRAYIRI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PIRAYIRI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678019
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PIRAYIRI VILLAGE OFFICE, PIRAYIRI P.O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678019
2025:KER:52158
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
2
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA SENATE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP
SRI.VISHNU S., SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52158
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.4783 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0527 Hectares of land comprised in Survey No.566/23 in Boock No.19 of Pirayi Village, Palakkad Taluk. The property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P1 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned Ext.P2 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P1 application, without inspecting the property directly or 2025:KER:52158 WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025 4 calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P2 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that, his property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously classified in the data bank as paddy land. Even though the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, to exclude the property from the data bank, the same has been rejected by the authorised officer without any application of mind.
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land 2025:KER:52158 WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025 5 is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court in 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 and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P2 order establishes that the authorised officer has not directly inspected the property or called for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the property from the data bank would adversely affect 2025:KER:52158 WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025 6 the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P2 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P1 application, in accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images, as per the procedure provided 2025:KER:52158 WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025 7 under Rule 4(4f), at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext.P1 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of the receipt of the satellite images. In case he directly inspects the property, he shall dispose of the application within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:52158 WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4783/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.08.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO DELETE THE ENTRY CONCERNING HIS PLOT FROM THE DATA BANK.
EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.