Kerala High Court
Ratna Sabu. K vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:60954
WP(C) NO. 4053 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4053 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RATNA SABU. K.,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. APPU KUTTY, RESIDING AT KAMBURATH, PERUMANNA
P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JERIL BABU
SHRI.SRINATH GIRISH
SMT.PRASUDHA.S
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE
RDO OFFICE, CIVIL STATION KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERUMANNA VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE, PIN
- 673019
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
2025:KER:60954
WP(C) NO. 4053 OF 2025
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60954
WP(C) NO. 4053 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 4053 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5.16
Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.77/2 in
Perumanna Village in Kozhikode Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 land tax receipt and Ext.P2 possession certificate.
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.P4 application in Form 5,
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P5 order,
2025:KER:60954
WP(C) NO. 4053 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:60954
WP(C) NO. 4053 OF 2025
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 [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.P5 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
2025:KER:60954
WP(C) NO. 4053 OF 2025
or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under
Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer
has merely acted upon the reports of the Agricultural
Officer and Village 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 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
2025:KER:60954
WP(C) NO. 4053 OF 2025
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5, 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 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
dkr
2025:KER:60954
WP(C) NO. 4053 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4053/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECEIPT DATED
23-10-2024
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 17-11-2022
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT
DATED 23-10-2024 ISSUED BY THE PERUMANNA
GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 21-11-2022
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 14-12-2024
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
