Kerala High Court
Noble George vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 15914 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:60930
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. 15914 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 NOBLE GEORGE,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. V.K. VARKEY, VETTATHETTU HOUSE,
KUDAKKACHIRA,PALA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KURIAN PAILY, S/O.
PAILY,AGED 79 YEARS, MANALEL HOUSE,
ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM P.O., KADATHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686604
2 ROSE MARY NOBLE,
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. NOBLE GEORGE,VETTATHETTU HOUSE,
KUDAKKACHIRA,PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KURIAN PAILY, S/O.
PAILY,AGED 79 YEARS, MANALEL HOUSE,
ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM P.O., KADATHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686604
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)
SRI.BIJO FRANCIS
SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D COUTH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT
KOCHI, KOCHI, PIN - 682002
WP(C) NO. 15914 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:60930
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682011
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANAYANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682312
5 AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
CHOTTANIKKARA KRISHI
BHAVAN,THIRUVAMKULAM,THRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682305
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE,1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
BY SMT.DEEPA V, 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. 15914 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:60930
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession of
12.95 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.54/4-2-2, 54/4-
3 and 54/5-2-2 in Kanayannur Village, covered under
Ext.P2 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 an 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 calling for the satellite pictures as
2025:KER:60930
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
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' 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 [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy
2025:KER:60930
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 hold that the
impugned order was passed in contravention of the
2025:KER:60930
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 2nd 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
hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the
2025:KER:60930
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:60930
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15914/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
2983/1/08 OF SRO MULANTHURUTHY I
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 17-11-
2024 FOR THE PERIOD OF 2024-2025
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 31-10-2024 IN THE
APPLICATION NO. 1/2022/17600 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY (3 NOS) TO PROVE THAT THE
PROPERTY WAS CONVERTED AFTER 2008
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR OBTAINING
SATELLITE PICTURES OF THE PETITIONERS
PROPERTY DATED 13-12-2024
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED
13-12-2024 DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF INDIA IN
FAVOUR OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT, DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM
