Kerala High Court
Indira Balakrishnan vs The Revenue Divisional Ofricer on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 3691 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:54964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3691 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
INDIRA BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 69 YEARS
INDIRA BALAKRISHNAN, W/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,"GOKUL",
INDIRANAGAR KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI., PIN - 682020
BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR
SHRI.K.B.DAYAL
SMT.P.USHAKUMARI
SMT.DEEPA. P.R.
SMT.PALLAVI K.B.
SMT.SONA ROMILDA PODUTHAS
SHRI.BABY K.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFRICER
FORT KOCHI RDO OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING
THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (UNDER PADDY
AND WET LAND ACT) TRIPOONITHURA
REP BY ITS CONVENER THE AGRICULTURE OFRICER,
TRIPOONITHURA. KOCHI, PIN - 682301
*3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
THRIPUNITHURA-682 301.
*(ADDL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
11.04.2025 IN IA NO.2/2025 IN WP(C) NO.3691/2025.)
BY SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
SC- SRI.ROBSON PAUL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3691 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:54964
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9.484 Cents of land comprised in Survey No.742/3 in Nadama Village, covered under Ext.P1 sale deed. The property is a converted land and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules', for brevity). To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any WP(C) NO. 3691 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:54964 independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 -- the date the Act came into force. The impugned order, therefore, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's principal contention is that the applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected the same without proper consideration or application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of this Court -- including the decisions 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 WP(C) NO. 3691 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:54964 Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the authorised officer is obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property is to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 order reveals that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has personally inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who in turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, that the impugned order has been passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether the WP(C) NO. 3691 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:54964 exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the impugned order was passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated due to errors of law and non-application of mind, and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application, in accordance with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the property or calling for the satellite pictures as provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.WP(C) NO. 3691 OF 2025 6
2025:KER:54964
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the property personally, the application shall be disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB WP(C) NO. 3691 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:54964 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3691/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 348/2006 OF TRIPOONITHURA SUB REGISTRY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE AREA EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 26/4/2021 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LET RESPONDENT DATED 04/11/2023 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT