Kerala High Court
K.Chandrasekharan Nair vs Revenue Divisional Officer /Sub ... on 12 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:60666
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44200 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
K.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,
AGED 88 YEARS
KALIKODAN HOUSE NADUVATTOM, BEYPORE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673015
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY
SHRI.DINOOP P.D.
SMT.RICHU HANNA RANJITH
SMT.L.LAKSHMI OMANAKUTTAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER /SUB COLLECTOR,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAZHAKUTTOM VILLAGE OFFICE,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KAZHAKKUTTOM AGRICUTURAL OFFICE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.44200 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:60666
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5.7
Ares of land in Kazhakkoottam Village,
Thiruvananthapuram 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:60666
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],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
2025:KER:60666
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
of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no
finding whether the exclusion of the property would
2025:KER:60666
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 first 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 for the
satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
2025:KER:60666
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/12.08.25
2025:KER:60666
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44200/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
2/8/2008 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED
AS EXHIBIT P1
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
31/08/2024 ISSUED FROM KAZHAKKOOTTAM
VILLAGE OFFICE IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS EXHIBIT P2
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 3/11/2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS EXHIBIT P3
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.8/2022/742769
I 4 (DDIS) DATED 2/09/2024 IS PRODUCED
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P4.
