Kerala High Court
Pathumakutty vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur on 7 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 44929 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:49562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44929 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
PATHUMAKUTTY,
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O. KUNHI MOIDEEN KUTTY, UZHINHALATH, MOONAKKAL,
NEAR MOONAKKAL JUMASJID, EDAYOOR PO VALANCHERI,
MALAPURAM, DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 676552
BY ADVS. SHRI.AJMAL P.
SMT.AKSHAYA S.NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR
TIRUR OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR-THRIKANDIYOOR RD, TIRUR, KERALA, PIN - 67610
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
FOR THE EDAYUR VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676102
3 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE [KSREC]
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
BY SRI.K.M.FAIZAL, GP
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44929 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:49562
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8 Ares and 90 sqm of land comprised in Survey Nos.385/4-10 and 385/4-11 in Block No.2 in Edayur Village, Tirur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 possession certificate. 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 petitioner 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 WP(C) NO. 44929 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:49562 the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P5 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that her 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 petitioner 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 the decisions WP(C) NO. 44929 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:49562 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 matter afresh, in accordance WP(C) NO. 44929 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:49562 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 1st 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 petitioner.
(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 images. In case he directly inspects the property, he shall dispose of the WP(C) NO. 44929 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:49562 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 NAB WP(C) NO. 44929 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:49562 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44929/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT.23.01.2024 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.23.02.2024 NUMBERED AS 18/2024/28165, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT U/S 5 (4) (I) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.27.10.2024, REJECTING EXT.P4 APPLICATION BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT