Kerala High Court
Prashobha vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 11 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:51418
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PRASHOBHA
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. GANESH, ‘LAKSHMI NILAYAM', VIYYUR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P.
SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI
SHRI.RAKESH S MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
IRINJALAKUDA , 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION RD,
IRINJALAKUDA, KERALA, PIN - 680125
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
IRINJALAKKUDA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA
KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 682308
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
IRINJALAKKUDA KRISHI BHAVAN, IRINJALAKKUDA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680121
4 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE SATELLITE REMOTE SENSING &
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, ‘C' BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033
2025:KER:51418
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
2
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, SC-SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:51418
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0259 hectares of land comprised in Survey No. 15/2- 3 in Irinjalakuda Village, Mukundapuram 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 ExtP5 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 1st respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P5 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as 2025:KER:51418 WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025 4 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 and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., 2025:KER:51418 WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025 5 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 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 2025:KER:51418 WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025 6 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.P5 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.P5 2025:KER:51418 WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025 7 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/11/7/2025 2025:KER:51418 WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3912/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1597/2010 DATED 22.07.2010 OF SRO, IRINJALAKKUDA Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.KL08035301182/2023 DATED 01.04.2023 Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF IRINJALAKKUDA VILLAGE IN THE LIMIT OF IRINJALAKKUDA MUNICIPALITY DATED 19.01.2021 Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 11.03.2024 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 288/2025 DATED 17.01.2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT