Kerala High Court
Deol Jack Shibu vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 21035 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:60925
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. 21035 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DEOL JACK SHIBU
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. SHIBU SKARIA, KEEPADAYIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERY
P.O., KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
682311
BY ADV SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA, RDO OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, PATTIMATTOM
- MUVATTUPUZHA RD, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686691
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KRISHI
BHAVAN, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686691
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. 21035 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:60925
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8.37
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.1045/1-3-2 in
Kothamangalam Village, 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.P5 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 mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any
2025:KER:60925
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
Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and
2025:KER:60925
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
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:60925
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.P5 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:60925
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:60925
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21035/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
03/04/2024 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE
OFFICE; KOTHAMANGALAM
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED EXECUTED AS
DOCUMENT NO. 1895/I/2023 DATED 04/04/2023
OF SRO, KOTHAMANGALAM
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON LAND USE
CHANGE OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
FROM KSREC PERTAINING TO THE SURVEY PLOT
1045/1 OF KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/06/2025
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
