Girija Bai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1576 Ker
Judgement Date : 25 July, 2025

Kerala High Court

Girija Bai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 July, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 24900 OF 2024            1


                                                          2025:KER:54965

              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. 24900 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

             GIRIJA BAI,
             AGED 67 YEARS
             W/O. IYYANI THOTTUNGAL BHASKARAN, PANAMBILLY HOUSE,
             NADAVARAMBU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680661


             BY ADVS.
             SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P.
             SHRI.RAKESH S MENON
             SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI


RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             IRINJALAKKUDA, MINI CIVIL STATION,
             IRINJALAKKUDA,, PIN - 680125

     2       LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
             VELUKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
             CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VELUKKARA KRISHI
             BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680683

     3       THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
             VELUKKARA, VELUKKARA P.O.,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680683

             BY SMT.DEEPA V, GP


      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. 24900 OF 2024       2


                                               2025:KER:54965

                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.1538 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.597/1 in Kottanellur Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 and P2 documents and Ext.P3 land tax receipt. 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.P6 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P7 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated WP(C) NO. 24900 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:54965 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. 24900 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:54965 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.P7 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. 24900 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:54965 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.P7 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. 24900 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:54965 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. 24900 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:54965 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24900/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P- 1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.

2796/2013 DATED 11.09.2013 OF KOTTANELLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO. 25/2017 DATED 05.01.2017 OF SRO, VADAKKUMKARA EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND RECEIPT NO.KL08035003008/2024 DATED 22.06.2024 EXHIBIT P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF KOTTANELLUR VILLAGE EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND EXHIBIT P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 11.05.2023 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P-7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 4041/2024 DATED 12.06.2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT