Kerala High Court
Lingammal vs Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub ... on 10 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:50873
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. 44064 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
LINGAMMAL
AGED 70 YEARS
KOVILPATTI, THUTHUKKUDI,
TAMIL NADU, PIN - 628501
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY
SMT.RICHU HANNA RANJITH
SHRI.DINOOP P.D.
SMT.L.LAKSHMI OMANAKUTTAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ SUB COLLECTOR
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
2 VILLAGE OFFICER
KAZHAKKUTTOM VILLAGE OFFICE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KAZHAKKUTTOM AGRICULTURAL OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
THIS WRITOTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.44064 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:50873
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 04.05 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.99/11-1 in Block No.11 of Kazhakkoottam Village, Thiruvananthapuram 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. P3 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. P3 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 WP(C) NO.44064 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:50873 regarding the nature and character of 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, 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 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 WP(C) NO.44064 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:50873 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. P4 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 WP(C) NO.44064 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:50873 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. P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext. P3 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. P3 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three WP(C) NO.44064 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:50873 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 mtk/10.07.25 WP(C) NO.44064 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:50873 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44064/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALEDEED DATED 20/09/2008 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 1/04/2022 ISSUED FROM KAZHAKKUTTOM VILLAGE OFFICE PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 3/11/2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 9/2022/742769 I 4 (DDIS) DATED 2/09/2024 PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P4