Kerala High Court
Yousuf Kunju vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub ... on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:50385
WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024
1
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. 45320 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
YOUSUF KUNJU,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O KOYA KUNJU , S/O MUHAMMED HANEEFA, SHIFA MAHAL,
AYATHIL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691021.
BY ADV SRI.JOMY K. JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE RDO , CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN -
691013.
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURE OFFICE, ALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691578.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691578.
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013.
5 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691001.
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, GOVT.PLEADER
2025:KER:50385
WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50385
WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 45320 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 25.55 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.183/17, 183/18, 183/19 and 183/20 in Kalluvathukkal Village, Kollam Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 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.P6 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4 application, without 2025:KER:50385 WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024 4 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.P6 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 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 2025:KER:50385 WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024 5 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 Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P6 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 2025:KER:50385 WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024 6 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.P6 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 2025:KER:50385 WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024 7 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 dkr 2025:KER:50385 WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45320/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 958/2016 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 13- 07-2021 VIDE NO. KL02032105154/2021 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 22-04-2016 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN FORM 5 DATED 25-02-2022 EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-08-2024