Kerala High Court
N.V.Raju vs State Of Kerala on 1 August, 2025
W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2022 1
2025:KER:57279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6260 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
N.V.RAJU, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.VARKEY, NJATTUTHOTTIYIL HOUSE,
KOLENCHERY P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 311
BY ADVS. SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
SHRI.ALEXANDER K.C.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
ALAPUZHA, ALAPUZHA-688 013
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE,
MANNANCHERRY,ALAPUZHA-688 538
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
MANNANCHERRY, REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MANNANCHERY, ALAPUZHA-688 538
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
MANNANCHERRY, ALAPUZHA-688 538
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2022 2
2025:KER:57279
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2022
.................................................................
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 order
whereby the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner has been
rejected by the 2nd respondent solely relying on the report of the
Agricultural Officer.
2. Petitioner is in ownership of different extent of properties
comprised in various survey numbers in block No.4 of Mannancherry
Village in Ambalappuzha Taluk and bounded by National Highway on the
west and PWD road on the north. Petitioner contends that Ext.P1 order
was issued without following the procedures prescribed under the
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and
Others [2017 (1) KHC 394] has held that the Data Bank that was
contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only
of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of
LLMC concerned. Further in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala [2020 (5) KHC
2025:KER:57279
490] has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data
bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming
into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Divisional
Officer/Sub Collector [2021 (1) KLT 433] it was held that it is the
character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters,
to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (4) KLT
OnLine 1222] has held that the most relevant aspect while considering
Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a
wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for
paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied
with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data
including satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. This court in
Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270]
has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from the Data
Bank, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss
the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to remove
the land from Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer being the
competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the land
and come to a conclusion that removal of the land from Data Bank will
adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question or in the nearby
paddy lands or that it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the
2025:KER:57279
area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is
unsustainable. Further, this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue
Divisional Officer [2023 (5) KLT 432] has held that the predominant
factor for consideration while considering the Form-5 application should
be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one
where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.
5. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that the said decision has been
taken based on the report of the Agricultural Officer only. Further two
reasons stated in the report of the Agricultural Officer not to recommend
the case of the petitioner are that the property is lying low and there is
water logging in the property, which are not reasons available for the
authority for rejecting the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner
going by the judgments in Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue
Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, 2021 (6) KHC 316 and Mather
Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector,
Ernakulam and others, 2020 (2) KHC 94. Petitioner further submits that
though a KSRSEC report was called for and received, the observations
therein were not considered at the time of passing Ext.P1 order.
A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that Ext.P3 KSRSEC report
has not been properly considered and further no site inspection is seen to
have been conducted by the 2nd respondent. In view of the above facts
and circumstances, Ext.P1 order is set aside with a consequential
2025:KER:57279
direction to the 2nd respondent/competent officer to reconsider Form 5
application submitted by the petitioner after duly considering Ext.P3
KSRSEC report and after conducting a site inspection. A decision as
directed above shall be taken within an outer limit of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner will be free to file
argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him to
substantiate his contentions and the 2nd respondent RDO/competent
officer while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to
the findings of this Court in the judgments cited (supra) and also the
contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by him.
With the abovesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of.
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
2025:KER:57279
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6260/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.11.2021
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE LLMC
DATED 20.10.2021
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSRSEC
DATED 09.12.2020
