Kerala High Court
Titty Bijo vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:50478
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. 45256 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
TITTY BIJO,
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O BIJOMON, PUTHENKALAM HOUSE, KUNNAMKARY P.O.,
VELIYANAD VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 686102
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANIL JOSE
SRI.BONNY BENNY
SRI.P.G.SUDHEESH
SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU
SHRI.AMALJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ALAPPUZHA,COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,RDO OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688013
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VELIYANAD VILLAGE,VELIYANAD, KUTTANAD TALUK,ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689590
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN,VELIYANAD, KIDANGARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:50478
PIN - 686102
6 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
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. 45256 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:50478
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.45256 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4 Ares and 85 Sq. Mt. of land, comprised in Survey No.74/1-5-2 in Veliyanad Village, Kuttanad 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 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 the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P5 WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:50478 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 Ext.P4 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
386) and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:50478 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 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 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:50478 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 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 rkc/09.07.25 WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:50478 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45256/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.588/2023 DATED 13/3/2023 OF PULINCUNNU SRO Exhibit-P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRIOR SALE DEED NO.820/1993 DATED 30/4/1993 OF PULINCUNNU SRO Exhibit-P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 9/12/2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELIYANAD Exhibit-P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 31/10/2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit-P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/6/2024 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT