Kerala High Court
Seenath vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52214
WP(C) NO. 4397 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. 4397 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SEENATH,
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O UMMER M, MATTUTHODY HOUSE, PATHAYIKKARA
P.O.,PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322
BY ADV SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SHORNUR-
PERINTHALMANNA RD, SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA,
PIN - 679322
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676505
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PANAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE, PARAPPANANGADI ROAD,
KOLMANNA, PANAKKAD, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676519
SMT.JESSY SALIM, SR.GP
2025:KER:52214
WP(C) NO. 4397 OF 2025
2
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:52214
WP(C) NO. 4397 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.4397 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4 Ares and 5 square metres of land comprised in Re-survey No.331/3-7 in Panakkad Village, Ernad Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. 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 a Form-5 application 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 the Form 5 application, without 2025:KER:52214 WP(C) NO. 4397 OF 2025 4 inspecting the property directly or 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 2025:KER:52214 WP(C) NO. 4397 OF 2025 5 Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land 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 2025:KER:52214 WP(C) NO. 4397 OF 2025 6 property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the property from the data bank would adversely affect 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 the Form-5 application, in
accordance with law. It would be up to the 2025:KER:52214 WP(C) NO. 4397 OF 2025 7 authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images, as per the procedure provided under Rule 4(4f), at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider the Form-5 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:52214 WP(C) NO. 4397 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4397/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANAKKAD VILLAGE IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED 05-06-2024 EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-10-2024 EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 10-02-2003 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MANJERI