Kerala High Court
Fr. Antony George vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 11 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:59875
WP(C) NO. 39158 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39158 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
FR. ANTONY GEORGE,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. K.T. VARGHESE, VICAR, ST. ALPHONSA FORANE
CHURCH, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
679322
BY ADV SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA, RDO OFFICE, SHORNUR-PERINTHALMANNA
ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KRISHI BHAVAN,PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PIN - 679322
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA VILLAGE OFFICE, SANTHI NAGAR,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
4 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, VIKASBHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2025:KER:59875
WP(C) NO. 39158 OF 2024
2
GP SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59875
WP(C) NO. 39158 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
4.48 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.109/6-3 of
Perinthalmanna Village, covered under Ext.P1
possession certificate. The property is a converted land
and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless,
the respondents have erroneously classified the
property as 'wetland' 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 a Form 5 application 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
calling for the satellite pictures as mandated under
2025:KER:59875
WP(C) NO. 39158 OF 2024
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 unsustainable in law and
liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's principal contention is that the
applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the
Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected
the same without proper consideration or application of
mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court - including the decisions in Muraleedharan
Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
2025:KER:59875
WP(C) NO. 39158 OF 2024
[2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue
Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1)
KLT 433] - that the authorised officer 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 is to be excluded 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 personally inspected the property
or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under
Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer
has merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural
Officer without rendering 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
2025:KER:59875
WP(C) NO. 39158 OF 2024
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 circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the
property or calling for the satellite pictures as provided
under 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
2025:KER:59875
WP(C) NO. 39158 OF 2024
from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other
hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the
property personally, the application shall be 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
rmm/11/8/2025
2025:KER:59875
WP(C) NO. 39158 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39158/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 30.03.2023 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE DRAFT DATA BANK WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
THE PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY,
PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED
02.02.2021
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
14.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ,PERINTHALMANNA
DATED 19.10.2023
