Kerala High Court
Binish N.R vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:50497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
BINISH N.R,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT NIRAYANKUNNATH HOUSE,
MULLURKARA PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680583
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL
SMT.AMALENDU A.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL
STATION, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 TAHSILDAR (LR),
THALAPPILLI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
MULLURKARA, PIN - 680583
3 AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, MULLURKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680583
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:50497
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.23958 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.86 Ares of land, comprised in Survey No.550/1-3 in Block No.35 in Mullurkkara Village, Thalappilli Taluk, Thrissur District covered under Ext.P1 sale deed. 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.P2 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.P4 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2 application, without inspecting the property directly and without adverting to Ext.P3 report submitted by the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:50497 the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P4 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, his 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 Ext.P2 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 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 WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:50497
386) and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P4 order establishes that the authorised officer has not directly inspected the property. Even though the 3 rd respondent had called for Ext.P3 report and submitted the same before the 1st respondent, he has not considered to the said report in Ext.P4 order. 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 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 WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:50497 manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of 60 days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, after referring to Ext.P3 KSREC report or directly inspecting the property.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/09.07.25 WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:50497 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23958/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1291/2022 OF THE SRO CHELAKKARA Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER FORM 5 DATED 17.08.2022 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 28.02.2024 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LST RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.2023