Kerala High Court
Ranadev C.R vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 10 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:50719
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 RANADEV C.R.,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O C.K. RAVEENDRAN, ‘CHEMPARATHI', MANNUR
P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678642
2 DIVYA RANADEV,
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O RANADEV C.R., ‘CHEMPARATHI', MANNUR P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678642
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P.
SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI
SHRI.RAKESH S MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND CONVENER,
VILVATTOM KRISHI BHAVAN, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680631
WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:50719
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VILVATTOM KRISHI BHAVAN, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680631
5 DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING & ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:50719
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025 The petitioners are the co-owners in possession of 3.64 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.Y12-07/66-1 in Peringavu Village, Thrissur 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 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 2nd respondent 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, WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:50719 Ext.P5 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior 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 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 WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:50719 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 WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:50719 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 2nd 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 WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:50719 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 NAB WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:50719 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36077/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P- 1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 4480/2014 DATED 01.10.2014 OF THRISSUR SUB REGISTRY EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.
KL08016103482/2024 DATED 10.10.2024 EXHIBIT P- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF NOTIFIED DATA BANK DATED 22.01.2021 EXHIBIT P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 29.06.2023 EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1040/2024 DATED 22.09.2024 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE IMAGE SHOWING THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE LAND EXHIBIT P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE GROUND REALITY OF THE PETITIONERS' LAND