Kerala High Court
K.P. Mathai vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi on 10 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:50694
WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024
1
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. 24121 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
K.P. MATHAI ,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. PAILY, KALARICKAL, ULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682314
BY ADV SRI.V.S.ANU MON
RESPONDENT:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI,
RDO OFFICE FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
682001
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, MULAMTHURUTHY
KRISHI BHAVAN, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER- 682314
3 VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAMTHURUTHY VILLAGE ,
VILLAGE OFFICE, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682314
4 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
1ST FLOOR, VIKASBHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE
HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50694
WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 7.30 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.396/3-2-2 in Mulamthuruthy Village, Kanayannoor Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 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 a Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned Ext.P2 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He 2025:KER:50694 WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024 3 has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P2 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 and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the 2025:KER:50694 WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024 4 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.P2 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, who in 2025:KER:50694 WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024 5 turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, 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.P2 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Form 5 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 2025:KER:50694 WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024 6 of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Form 5 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 rmm/10/7/2025 2025:KER:50694 WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24121/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT