Kerala High Court
Suresh vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52762
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SURESH,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. CHATHU, MANAPARAMBIL
HOUSE,THUMBUR.P.O.,THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680662
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.RAJESH
SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
1ST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION RD,IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR DIST., PIN - 680125
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST., PIN -
680121
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, P.O.IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
DIST., PIN - 680121.
2025:KER:52762
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
2
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, CHEMMANDA ROAD,
IRINJALAKUDA NORTH, THRISSUR DIST., PIN - 680125
SMT.DEEPA V., GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52762
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.7904 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.76 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.673/1-18 in Manavalassery Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 sale deed. 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.P3 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.P4 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P3 application, without 2025:KER:52762 WP(C) NO. 7904 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.P4 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:52762 WP(C) NO. 7904 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.P4 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:52762 WP(C) NO. 7904 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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application, in accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised officer to 2025:KER:52762 WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025 7 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 Ext.P3 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:52762 WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7904/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO:2329/2005 OF IRINJALAKUDA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE DATED 28.9.2005 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 9.5.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION 12.5.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER FORM 5 OF THE RULE 2008 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 7.11.2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER