Kerala High Court
A. A. Sasi vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 5 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16141 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
A. A. SASI
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. AYYAPPAN, ANNIEKAATUKUDI HOUSE,
ERAMALLOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683541
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
SMT.V.SHYLAJA
SRI.JOSE PAUL THOTTAM
SMT.FATHIMA RAZAK
SHRI.JIBYMON JOSEPH
SHRI.ASWIN ANILKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
GROUND FLOOR, PATTIMATTAM ROAD,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683541
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
, NELLIKUZHI KRISHI BHAVAN,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683541
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER -SRI.K.M.FAISAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.16141 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:58457
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
2.83 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.189/2 in
Eramalloor Village, Kothamangalam Taluk, covered
under Ext. P3 land tax receipt. The property is a
converted land and is 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.P9 order, the authorised officer has partly rejected
the application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
2025:KER:58457
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. In the counter affidavit filed by the first
respondent, it is contended that, the Agricultural Officer
has examined the property and found that the same is
lying below the road level and there is waterlogging.
Therefore, the Agricultural Officer recommended not to
exclude the property from the data bank.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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
2025:KER:58457
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
5. 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],
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.
6. A reading of Ext.P9 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
2025:KER:58457
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 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 partial rejection of
Form 5 application is vitiated due to errors of law and
non-application of mind, and is liable to be quashed to
the said extent. Consequently, the authorised officer is to
be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application as per
the procedure prescribed under the law.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the
following manner:
(i). Ext. P9 order is quashed to the extend of
partially rejecting Ext. P5 application.
2025:KER:58457
(ii). The first 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 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 ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/05.08.25
2025:KER:58457
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16141/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED
BEARING NO. 1901/1993 OF KOTHAMANGALAM
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE DATED 6.4.1993
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH IN
RESPECT OF EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF
EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR 2024 TO
2025 DATED 3/10/2024
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
DATA BANK
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
20/2/2024
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4/9/2024.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1/7/2019.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
11/2/2020 ALLOWING THE CHANGE OF NATURE
OF LAND OF BALANCE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE
FORM 5 APPLICATION IN RESPECT OF EXHIBIT
P1 PROPERTY DATED 11/9/2024
