Kerala High Court
Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:48733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12906 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 SANTHOSH,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.ANTO, ALUKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KOZHUKULLY, KUZHUKULLY P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
2 SIMI,
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O.SANTHOSH, ALUKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KOZHUKULLY, KUZHUKULLY P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH (THRISSUR)
SMT.K.VINAYA
SMT.ADONIYA GIGI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE, CIVIL STATION,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR,
CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680022
WP(C) NO. 12906 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:48733
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOZHUKULLY VILLAGE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NADATHARA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
6 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R R),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12906 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:48733
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the owners in possession of 1.82 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.24/32-3 in Kozhukully Village, Thrissur Taluk, covered under Ext. P3 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioners had submitted Ext. P4 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned Ext. P5 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext. P4 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on WP(C) NO. 12906 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:48733 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P5 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' specific case is that, their property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously classified in the data bank as paddy land. Even though the petitioners had submitted a Form 5 application, to exclude the property from the data bank, the same has been rejected by the authorised officer without any application of mind.
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read WP(C) NO. 12906 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:48733 the decisions of this Court 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 and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext. P5 order establishes that the authorised officer has not directly inspected the property or called for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the WP(C) NO. 12906 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:48733 matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i). Ext. P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The second respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application, in accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images, as per the procedure provided under Rule 4(4f), at the expense of the petitioners.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext.P4 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of the receipt of the satellite WP(C) NO. 12906 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:48733 images. In case he directly inspects the property, he shall dispose of the application within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/03.07.25 WP(C) NO. 12906 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:48733 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12906/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DOCUMENT NO.396/I/2023 DATED 15.2.2023 OF SRO THRISSUR EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.5.2024 ISSUED BY LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN FORM NO.5 DATED 29.1.2024 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR [RR] THRISSUR DATED 30.8.2024 [ FILE NO. 268/2024 ]