Kerala High Court
Leena Isahak vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 31 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:56856
WP(C) NO. 28821 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28821 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
LEENA ISAHAK,
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O DR. MUHAMMED ANAS,MOOKKADA HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR,
NOW RESIDING AT 8D,DUKES,SKYLINE IMPERIAL GARDEN,
KALOOR,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI, PIN - 682018
BY ADVS.
SMT.AKHEELA FARZANA
SMT.SAJITHA SIDHIK
SMT.ANJALA FARHATH V.S.
SRI.V.K.SIDHIQUE
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA,MINI CIVIL STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN
- 686669
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN ,PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE,PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY CONVENOR/ AGRICULTURE
OFFICER,KRISHIBHAVAN , PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542
2025:KER:56856
WP(C) NO. 28821 OF 2024
2
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56856
WP(C) NO. 28821 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.28821of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.66 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.29/2-2 of Perumbavoor Village, Ernakulam District, covered under Ext.P2 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.P5 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P6 order, the authorised officer has 2025:KER:56856 WP(C) NO. 28821 OF 2024 4 summarily rejected the application without directing inspecting the property. Even though, the 2 nd respondent/ Agricultural Officer had called for Ext.P7 satellite pictures from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC, in short), the same was not adverted to by the 1st respondent in Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 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 2025:KER:56856 WP(C) NO. 28821 OF 2024 5 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 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.P6 order reveals that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory 2025:KER:56856 WP(C) NO. 28821 OF 2024 6 requirements. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has personally inspected the property. Even though the Agricultural Officer has called for Ext.P7 report as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, the authorised officer has not considered the said report. Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who in turn as relied on the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. 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 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 2025:KER:56856 WP(C) NO. 28821 OF 2024 7 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.P6 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5, in accordance with the law, at any rate within 90 days from the date of production of the copy of this judgment;
(iii) The authorised officer shall either directly inspect the property or consider Ext.P7 KSREC report.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:56856 WP(C) NO. 28821 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28821/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT NUMBER 4165 /2008 OF PERUMBAVOOR SRO DATED 29/05/2008 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 02/09/2022 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 04/04/1999 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 28/09/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/06/2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 13/05/2024 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE DATED 25/09/2023 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER FROM AGRICULTURE FIELD OFFICER.