Abish Nellikode vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 3444 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3444 Ker
Judgement Date : 13 August, 2025

Kerala High Court

Abish Nellikode vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 13 August, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

WP(C) NO. 19589 OF 2024              1

                                                            2025:KER:60921

              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. 19589 OF 2024

PETITIONERS:

             ABISH NELLIKODE,
             AGED 45 YEARS
             S/O APPUTTY N MANIKYAM , RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE,
             PIN - 673633,REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY,
             APPUTTY,S/O AYYAPPAN N, NELLIKKOTTUKAVU ROAD,
             RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE


             BY ADV SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL


RESPONDENTS:

       1     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE,
             KERALA, PIN - 673020

       2     AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
             KRISHI BHAVAN,KRISHI BHAVAN ROAD,
             RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673633

       3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             RAMANATTUKARA VILLAGE, RAMANATTUKARA,
             KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673633

             BY SMT.PREETHA K K, SR.GP


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    13.08.2025,   THE    COURT   ON    THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 19589 OF 2024          2

                                                  2025:KER:60921




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.72

Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.334/2A (old

Survey No.334/20) in Ramanattukara Village, Kozhikode

Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 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 Ext.P4 application in Form 5,

under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P7 order,

the authorised officer has summarily rejected the

application without either conducting a personal

2025:KER:60921

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 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:60921

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.P7 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:60921

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.P7 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:60921

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:60921

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 04/05/2023 OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 08/02/2018 OF RAMANATTUKARA MUNICIPALITY, EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CURRENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBITP3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CURRENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT-P3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CURRENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT-P3(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CURRENT LIE OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO 5 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 01/03/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE KSREC DATED 3-11-2020 EXHIBIT-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15/07/22 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/08/23 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT