Kerala High Court
Sarath Achuthan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 43938 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:54967
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. 43938 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SARATH ACHUTHAN,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. N ACHUTHAN, RESIDING AT 'SARANYA', PERUVEMBA
P.O, PERUVEMBA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678531
BY ADVS. SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VIDYUT NAGAR,
PARAKKUNNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE KANNADI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,
KRISHI BHAVAN, HEALTH CENTRE ROAD, KANNADI P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678701
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANNADI-II VILLAGE OFFICE, KANNADI P.O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678701
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SENATE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
BY SMT.DEEPA V. GP
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
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. 43938 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54967
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0364 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.32/75 in Block No.50 in Kannadi-II Village, Palakkad Taluk. 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.P1 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. But, by Ext.P2 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 WP(C) NO. 43938 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:54967 under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any 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 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. 43938 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:54967 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.P2 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. Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer without rendering any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the WP(C) NO. 43938 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:54967 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.P2 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 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.
(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 WP(C) NO. 43938 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:54967 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. 43938 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:54967 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43938/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO DELETE THE ENTRY CONCERNING HIS PLOT FROM THE DATA BANK.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P3 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PLOT ALONG WITH THE BUILDINGS AROUND.
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.