Kerala High Court
Sanil Kumar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52644
WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024
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. 26047 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SANIL KUMAR ,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O N.P RAMAN,KOTTAYAMPURATH (H) PERUMBAAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.S.SHAMLA
SMT.RISNI FARHATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
PATTIMATTOM, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD,
MUVATTUPPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ,
KOOVAPPADYVILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683544
SR.GP. SMT. PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52644
WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5 Ares and 86 Sq.Metres of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.325/2 and 325/3-2-2 in Koovappady Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 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.P5 order, the 1st respondent has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite 2025:KER:52644 WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024 3 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.P5 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 is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., 2025:KER:52644 WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024 4 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.P5 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 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 2025:KER:52644 WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024 5 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.P5 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 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 2025:KER:52644 WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024 6 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 rmm/16/7/2025 2025:KER:52644 WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26047/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 9827/2006 DATED 21.12.2006 EXECUTED BY BEENA ELDHO Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT WITH TP.
NO. 7484/2024 FOR THE YEAR 2024 - 2025 DATED 4.6.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND REPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 9.9.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.
317/2023 DATED 3.7.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY