Kerala High Court
Asiya vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54109
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. 13588 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ASIYA,
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O MOHAMED SHIBU, DARUSALAM,
PALODE,PACHA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.JATHIN DAS
SHRI.ARUN S.
SRI.T.A.PRAKASH
SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PALODE VILLAGE, PALODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NANNIYODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562
WP(C) NO.13588 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54109
5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
NANNIYODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
NANNIYODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V
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.13588 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:54109
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9 Ares and 53 sq. meters of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos. 332/20, 332/31, 332/40 and 332/41 in Block No. 13 of Palode Village, Nedumangad Taluk, covered under Ext. P3 land tax receipt. Out of the above extent of land, 8 Ares and 20 sq. meters of land comprised in Re-Survey No.332/20 was erroneously included in the data bank as 'paddy land'. To exclude the said 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. P6 order, the second respondent has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed to submit Ext. P8 application in Form 5 WP(C) NO.13588 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:54109 afresh. But, the Ext. P8 application was also rejected by Ext. P10 order. The second respondent 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. Hence, Exts. P6 and P10 orders are illegal and arbitrary, and are liable to be quashed.
2. In the statement filed by the second respondent, it is stated that, the Agricultural Officer has reported that the petitioner's property is waterlogged and marshy. There is a rivulet flowing through the property. Therefore, the Agricultural Officer has recommended not to exclude the property from the data bank. There is no error in Ext. P6 order. Ext. P8 application was rejected by Ext. P10 order because it was filed like an appeal against Ext. P6 order. There is WP(C) NO.13588 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:54109 no provision in the Act to file an appeal. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. 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.
5. 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 WP(C) NO.13588 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:54109 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)).
6. 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 after the submission of the Form 5 application. The authorised officer 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 WP(C) NO.13588 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:54109 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 and consequential Ext. P10 order is also set aside.
(ii). The second respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext. P8 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.WP(C) NO.13588 OF 2024 8
2025:KER:54109
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P8 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.13588 OF 2024 9 2025:KER:54109 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13588/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
2263/2007 OF PALODE SRO DATED 21.12.2007 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 22.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE PALODE VILLAGE OFFICER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.6.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PALODE EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.02.2022 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY DATED 11.8.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PALODE EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.9.2023 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT (KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE) DATED 5.7.2021 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWLY SUBMITTED FORM-5 BEFORE THE RDO DATED 11.11.2022 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RDO DATED 12.3.2024 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 08.01.2024