Kerala High Court
Soumya vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 11 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442
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. 42084 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SOUMYA,
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O KRISHNAMANI, VADAKKEMATHAM HOUSE, KOLAZHY P.O.,
KOLAZHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
2 SATHEESH,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAMANI, VADAKKEMATHAM HOUSE, KOLAZHY
P.O.,KOLAZHY, 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,
THRISSUR, FIRST FLOOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ( REVENUE RECOVERY),
THRISSUR FIRST FLOOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOLAZHY KRISHI
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442
2
BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KOLAZHY KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
GP.SMT.DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.42084 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the owner in possession of 4.05 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 225/8 in Kolazhy 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 petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 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. Although the 4th respondent had called for WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442 4 Ext.P7 report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), the same was not considered in the impugned order by the 1 st respondent. The 1st respondent 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.
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442 5
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 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. 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 WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442 6 bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by relying on the report of the 4th respondent, the impugned order has been passed. Even though the 4th respondent had called for Ext.P7 report, the same has not been considered in Ext.P6 order. 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 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application, by either directly inspecting the property or by considering WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442 7 Ext.P7 report, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE SCB.11.07.25.
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42084/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.589/1/2016 DATED 12.02.2016 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, THRISSUR Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.
KL08014503417/2023 DATED 11.07.2023 Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK DATED 14.01.2020 IN RESPECT OF KOLAZHY VILLAGE Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 17.12.2022 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 20.09.2023