Kerala High Court
Noorjahan vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 14 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:51850
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32157 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
NOORJAHAN,
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O MOIDEENKUTTY, PADATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
VELLANGALLUR.P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680622
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.P.R.REENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
VELLANGALLUR, VELLANGALLUR.P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680662
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, VELLANGALLUR,
VELLANGALLUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680662
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.32157 OF 2023 2
2025:KER:51850
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 22.5 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos. 157/1, 157/2, and 164/5 in Vadakkumkara Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, covered under Ext. P1 sale deed. Out of the above extent of land, 10 cents of land is a converted land even prior to the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Nonetheless, the entire property is shown as 'paddy land' in the data bank. Consequently, the petitioner had submitted Ext. P7 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short), before the first respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed Ext. P10 application in Form 5 of the Rules before the first respondent. But, by the impugned Ext. P15 order, the first respondent has perfunctorily rejected WP(C) NO.32157 OF 2023 3 2025:KER:51850 Ext. P10 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, Ext. P15 order is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be quashed.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that, the Local Level Monitoring Committee ('LLMC,' for short) was convinced that the petitioner's property was a paddy land as on the date of the commencement of the Act. Subsequently, the Agricultural Officer has also reported that the petitioner's property shall not be excluded from the data bank because the propoerty is surrounded by the paddy fields and is a part of "Kannolichira Padasekharam." If the property is excluded from the data bank, it would adversely affect the cultivation in the locality. There is no illegality in Ext. P15 order.
WP(C) NO.32157 OF 2023 4
2025:KER:51850
3. Subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit by the first respondent, the third respondent has filed a statement and has produced the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC).
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. 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.
6. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, this Court has 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 WP(C) NO.32157 OF 2023 5 2025:KER:51850 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)).
7. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others (2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and gets waterlogged during the rainy season or otherwise, due to the low-lying nature of the property, the property cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the prime consideration WP(C) NO.32157 OF 2023 6 2025:KER:51850 to retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land.
8. Ext. P15 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 relying on the observations made by the LLMC and the report prepared by his Office, the impugned order has been passed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the third respondent has produced the report of the KSREC, which seems to have been prepared at the time of the preparation of the data bank. Under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, the authorised officer is obliged to either directly inspect the property or call for the satellite images after the receipt of the Form 5 application. Thus, I am of the WP(C) NO.32157 OF 2023 7 2025:KER:51850 definite view that the KSREC report produced along with the statement of the third respondent cannot be accepted on record. Therefore, I am satisfied that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is 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. P15 order is quashed.
(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P10 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 WP(C) NO.32157 OF 2023 8 2025:KER:51850 expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P10 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 mtk/14.07.25 WP(C) NO.32157 OF 2023 9 2025:KER:51850 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32157/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1662/08 DATED 11.04.2008 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 10.12.2014 EXHIBIT P 4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE DATED 05.12.2016 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE KRISHI BHAVAN VELLANGALLUR EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.03.2021 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.06.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE EXHIBIT P 10 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.08.2021 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 17.08.2021 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CONVENER OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 29.09.2021 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.17367/2022 DATED 02.08.2022 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.12.2022 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN KHC 540 (JOY.K.K. V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR) EXHIBIT P 17 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2023 (4) KHC 524 (MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.R V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER)