Kerala High Court
M Gokuldas vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52564
WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023
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. 43988 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
M GOKULDAS,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O LATE K.P. CHEKKAI, DAFFODILS, PALLICKAL,
MALAPURAM, PIN - 676634
BY ADV SHRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND SUB COLLECTOR,CIVIL
STATION JUMA MASJID, SH29, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020
3 AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN , KAKODI,KOZHIKODE BALUSSERY RD,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673611
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAKKODI VILLAGE,KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN -
673611
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52564
WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.228 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.14/1 in Kakkodi Village, Kozhikode 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 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 2nd respondent has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without directly inspecting the property. Even though the 2 nd respondent had called for Ext.P1 report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment 2025:KER:52564 WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023 3 Centre(KSREC), wherein it is specifically found that the property is under mixed vegetation/plantation/trees with building/structures in the data of 2007, the 2nd respondent has rejected the application. 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 2025:KER:52564 WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023 4 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., 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. Instead, he had called for KSREC report. In the said report, it is specifically found that the property is under mixed 2025:KER:52564 WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023 5 vegetation/plantation/trees with building/structures in the data of 2007. Notwithstanding the specific observations in the said report, the 2nd respondent, without rendering 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, has rejected the Form 5 application by solely relying on the report of 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 following manner:
2025:KER:52564 WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023 6
(i). Ext.P2 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 90 days 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:52564 WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43988/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO.
A/172/2015/KSREC/004544/2022 FROM THE KSREC DATED 21.05.2022 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE NO.RDOKKD/1936/2021-C3 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.06.2023