Kerala High Court
Chandrika. P.K @ Chandra vs Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub ... on 21 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 22743 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
CHANDRIKA. P.K @ CHANDRA,
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O SUKUMARAN, PANDARATHIL HOUSE,
PANDIKKAD ROAD, VIYYUR.P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.P.R.REENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KOLAZHY KRISHI BHAVAN ST.ALPHONSA NAGAR,
THIROOR.P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680581
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.22743 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54019
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 20 cents of land comprised in Survey No.335/1-3 in Kuttoor Village, Thrissur 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 Ext. P4 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. P6 order, the first respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext. P4 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. WP(C) NO.22743 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:54019 He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P6 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, her 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., the WP(C) NO.22743 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:54019 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. P6 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, who in WP(C) NO.22743 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:54019 turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee ('LLMC'), 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. P6 order is quashed.
(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext. P4 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 WP(C) NO.22743 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:54019 expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P4 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 mtk/21.07.25 WP(C) NO.22743 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:54019 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22743/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED 07.06.2024 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF LAND DATA BANK PUBLISHED BY KOLAZHY GRAMAPANCHAYATH BY NOTIFICATION S3- 1324/2020 DATED 14.01.2020, SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE LAND OF PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 24.01.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2023 (4) KLT 524 (MURALEEDHARAN NAIR R, V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER) EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, FILE NO.1828/2023 DATED 09.06.2023 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR