Kerala High Court
Thomas Kurian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 11 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:40872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
THOMAS KURIAN,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. KURIAN THOMAS, PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, VELLOOR
P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686501
BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
SMT.NEENA ELISABATH ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, MARADU, PIN - 682040
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
MARADU MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS CONVENOR, THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MARADU, PIN -
682040
BY SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:40872
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P3 application (Form 5) submitted by the petitioner under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner and his wife are the co-owners in possession of 12.17 Ares of land comprised in Re- Survey Nos.420/1-8 and 421/5-4-2 in Block No.13 of Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. Even though the petitioner's property is a converted land, the same has been erroneously classified as wetland in the data bank. In order to exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 application before the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent called for Ext.P4 Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) report. Nevertheless, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, the 2nd WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:40872 respondent has rejected Ext.P3 application without any application of mind. The 2nd respondent has not directly inspected the property or rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and the character of the petitioner's property. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, inter alia, stating that, since the petitioner's property is classified as wetland and included in the data bank, Ext.P3 application was forwarded to the Village Officer for report on 06.06.2023. As per the Village Officer's report, the applied land is classified as wetland in the revenue records. On the basis of the Village Officer's report, Ext.P3 application was forwarded to the Agricultural Officer, who has submitted a report stating that the property was not converted prior to 2008. Therefore, the property cannot be excluded from the data bank. Hence, there is no illegality in Ext.P6 order.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024 4
2025:KER:40872
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, his property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The respondents have erroneously classified the same as wetland and included it in the data bank. Even though the 2nd respondent had called for Ext.P4 KSREC report, which undoubtedly substantiate that the petitioner's property is bordered by a road and is under vegetation cover since 2002, the 2nd respondent rejected the same.
6. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has held that, it is 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 WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:40872
386) and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
7. In Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others [2020 (2) KLT 192], a Division Bench of this Court has succinctly held that merely because the property is lying fallow and gets water logged during rainy season or otherwise due to its low -lying nature, the said property cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land as contemplated under the Act, 2008.
8. Ext.P6 order reveals that the 2nd respondent has not directly inspected the property. He has solely relied on the report of the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer to come to a conclusion that the petitioner's property cannot be excluded from the data bank. Ext.P4 report specifically shows that the petitioner's property is bordered by a road on the north and is under vegetation cover in the 2002 data. But, the 2nd respondent has WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:40872 not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the petitioner's property as on the crucial data i.e., 12.08.2008, or whether the exclusion of the petitioner's property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. Thus, I am satisfied and convinced that there has been total non- application of mind in passing Ext.P6 order and the 2nd respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P6 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment after WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:40872 specifically adverting to the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions and Ext.P4 KSREC report.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:40872 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34802/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED AND REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.2972/2010 DATED 25/11/2010 OF SRO, MARADU EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.A3- 8780/10 DATED 17/09/2010 ISSUED FROM THE MARADU MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.5 APPLICATION DATED 26/05/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 03/01/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE KSREC BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PETITIONER'S 12.17 ARES (30.05 CENTS) OF LAND (5.38 ARES OF LAND IN RE-SURVEY NO.420/1-8 & 6.79 ARES OF LAND IN RE-
SURVEY NO.421/5-4-2) IN BLOCK NO.13 OF MARADU VILLAGE EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/09/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT