Kerala High Court
R. Chithra vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 4023 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:60928
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. 4023 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
R. CHITHRA,
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. RATHNAVEL, RAJESWARI BHAVANAM, MEENA NAGAR,
KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.VENKATESH
SMT.ASHA P.KURIAKOSE
SMT.LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, MARUTHARODE,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 4023 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:60928
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0607
hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.103/51 in
Block No.38 in Marutharod Village, Palakkad Taluk,
covered under Exts.P1 and P2 title deeds. 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.P3 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the
Rules. However, by Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer
has summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for
2025:KER:60928
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 Senior 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
2025:KER:60928
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.P4 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 hold that the
2025:KER:60928
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.P4 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
from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other
2025:KER:60928
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
NAB
2025:KER:60928
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4023/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED GIFT DEED NO.
1113/2016 DATED 7.2.2016 OF SRO PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PRIOR DEED, REGISTERED SALE
DEED NO. 4982/1999 DATED 29.10.1999
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF FORM -5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.12.2023
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2025
THE RDO HAS REJECTED EXT P3 APPLICATION
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2022 IN
FILE NO. 966/2022 PASSED BY THE RDO,
PALAKKAD
