Kerala High Court
Kumman Jayadevan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 30 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:56543
WP(C) NO. 1302 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1302 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
KUMMAN JAYADEVAN,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O ANANDAN, ANANDHAM, KOTTARATHUMPARA, AZHIKODE
SOUTH, KANNUR, PIN - 670009
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR
SHRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR,
PIN - 670141
2 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, VANKULATHVAYAL, AZHOKODE, KANNUR, PIN
- 670009
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
SMT.DEEPA V., GP
2025:KER:56543
WP(C) NO. 1302 OF 2025
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56543
WP(C) NO. 1302 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.1302 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 27.60 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey Nos. 79/114, 79/115 and 79/116 in Block No.167 in Azhikode North Village, covered under Exts.P1 to P1(b) documents. 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.P-2 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 order, 2025:KER:56543 WP(C) NO. 1302 OF 2025 4 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 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 2025:KER:56543 WP(C) NO. 1302 OF 2025 5 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 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 2025:KER:56543 WP(C) NO. 1302 OF 2025 6 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, who in turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, 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 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.
2025:KER:56543 WP(C) NO. 1302 OF 2025 7 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 the Form 5, 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 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 dkr 2025:KER:56543 WP(C) NO. 1302 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1302/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JENMAM DEED DOCUMENT NO.875/1981 DATED 25.03.1981 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, VALAPATTANAM EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JENMAM DEED DOCUMENT NO.876/1981 DATED 25.03.1981 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, VALAPATTANAM EXHIBIT P1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JENMAM DEED DOCUMENT NO.1667/1979 DATED 23.08.1979 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, VALAPATTANAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 26.10.2022 FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED DATED 09.02.2024 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTIES (4 NUMBERS)