Kerala High Court
K.C.Shibu vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:57914
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 11944 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
K.C.SHIBU,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. LATE K. V. CHAKKAPPAN,
RESIDING AT KOCHERY HOUSE, KANGARAPADY,
COCHIN, PIN - 682021
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANEESH JAMES
SHRI.JIJO THOMAS
SMT.M.D.BEENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.),
ERNAKULAM,CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
COCHIN, PIN - 682030
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE,VILLAGE OFFICE,
PADIVATTOM P.O.,COCHIN, PIN - 682024
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KALAMASSERY,KANGARAPADY,
COCHIN, PIN - 682021
5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
KALAMASSERY, PIN - 682021
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.11944 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:57914
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.465
Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 385/4-3 and
385/4-2-3 of Thrikkakara North Village, Kanayannur
Taluk covered under Ext. P2 land tax receipt. The
property is a converted plot and unsuitable for paddy
cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and
included it in the data bank maintained under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and
the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules", for
brevity). To exclude the property from the data bank, the
petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application in Form 5
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P7 order,
the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
2025:KER:57914
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery, as
specifically mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Furthermore, the order is devoid of any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the land as
it existed on 12.08.2008 -- the date the Act came into
force. The impugned order, therefore, is arbitrary and
legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the
subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or application
of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
2025:KER:57914
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
[2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent authority is
obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of the land
and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008,
which are the decisive criteria to determine whether the
property merits exclusion from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P7 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. There is no indication in the order that the
authorised officer has directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character of
2025:KER:57914
the land as on the relevant date. There is also no finding
whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially
affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above
findings, I hold that the impugned order was passed in
contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid
down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated
due to errors of law and non-application of mind, and is
liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer
is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application as
per the procedure prescribed under the law.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P7 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application in accordance
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
2025:KER:57914
for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
iii. If satellite pictures are called for, the application
shall be disposed of within three months from the date of
receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the
authorised officer opts to personally inspect the property,
the application shall be considered and disposed of within
two months from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/04.08.25
2025:KER:57914
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11944/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 . A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
3575/2014 OF EDAPPALLY SRO
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED
01.03.2024 IN RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK OF KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY
RELATING TO EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY PUBLISHED
IN 2016 AND ATTESTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
Exhibit P4 . A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATE BANK OF KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY
PUBLISHED ON 05.02.2021
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.07.2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2541/2024
DATED 24/10/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 . A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-
4245/2021 DATED 14.01.2022 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 . A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
RDOCHN/4245/2020-K2 DATED 14.12.2021 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
