Kerala High Court
Mohanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52722
WP(C) NO. 4485 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. 4485 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MOHANAN,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.APPUNNI, KARUVADI HOUSE, THEYYANGAD, PONNANI,
EZHUVATHURUTHY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SMT.SMITHA BABU
SHRI.PRANAV
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, EZHUVATHURUTHY, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679586
3* THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
EZHUVATHURUTHY VILLAGE, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN-679 586.
*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.02.2025
IN IA NO.1/2025 IN WP(C) NO.4485/2025
2025:KER:52722
WP(C) NO. 4485 OF 2025
2
SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP
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:52722
WP(C) NO. 4485 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.4485 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 48.58 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.1-2 in Block No.9 in Ezhuvathuruthy Village in Ponnani Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 possession certificate. The property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'wetland' 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.P3 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected the Form-5 application, without 2025:KER:52722 WP(C) NO. 4485 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.P3 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 wetland. 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 2025:KER:52722 WP(C) NO. 4485 OF 2025 5 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.P3 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:52722 WP(C) NO. 4485 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, he has relied on the report of the Agricultural Officer and passed the impugned order. In fact, going by the materials on records it is seen that the property is classified as wetland. In view of Rule 4(4e) of the Rules, if the property is classified as wetland then the jurisdictional officer is the Village Officer and not the Agricultural Officer. 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 2025:KER:52722 WP(C) NO. 4485 OF 2025 7 following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed. (ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form-5 application after calling for a report from the additional 3rd respondent, who is directed to submit the report within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
(iii) On receipt of the report from the additional 3 rd respondent, the authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form-5 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 under Rule 4(4f) at the expense of the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:52722 WP(C) NO. 4485 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4485/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EZHUVATHURUTHY VILLAGE DATED, 10-1-2025 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT AS NO.3332/2023 DATED, 23-02- 2024