Kerala High Court
Kesavan P.K vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:57924
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. 43595 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KESAVAN P.K.,
AGED 81 YEARS
S/O KOCHUKUTTAN,PULLANIKKAL HOUSE,
EAST FORT,KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DT., PIN - 680005
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
SMT.AGI SHOBY
SMT.TINU WILSON
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE RDO, AYYANTHOLE PO,
COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE PO,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERIGAVU VILLAGE, WOMENS CLUB ROAD,
CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR CITY, PIN - 680020
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE [LLMC]-
(WITHIN THE LOCAL LIMITS OF THRISSUR CORPORATION),
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
NEAR VAYANASALA BUS STOP, CHERUR,
VILVATTOM PO, THRISSUR DT, PIN - 680008
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NEAR VAYANASALA BUS STOP,
CHERUR, VILVATTOM PO,
THRISSUR DT., PIN - 680008
WP(C) NO.43595 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:57924
6 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
'C' BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.43595 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:57924
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
9.31 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.1235/29 of
Peringavu Village, Thrissur Taluk covered under Ext.
P1 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.P2 application in Form 5 under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
2025:KER:57924
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.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
2025:KER:57924
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.P3 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
2025:KER:57924
of 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.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application in accordance
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
2025:KER:57924
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:57924
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43595/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 10-6-2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 15-10-2022 FOR THE EXCLUSION OF
LAND COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO. 1235/29 OF
PERINGAVU VILLAGE IN THRISSUR TALUK IN
THRISSUR DISTRICT TO EXCLUDE AN EXTEND OF
9.31 ARES IE 23 CENTS OF LAND FROM THE
FINALIZED DATA BANK
EXHIBIT P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN FILE NO. 455 /2024
DATED 19-9-2024
EXHIBIT P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 21-7-2023
