Kerala High Court
Shibu K vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 31542 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:60919
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. 31542 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
SHIBU K,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. GANGADHARAN NAIR C, RESIDING AT SHYLA NIVAS,
POOKKOTTUKAVU, AMBALAPARA-II, KADAMBUR, OTTAPALAM,
PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 679515
BY ADVS. SHRI.SRIKANTH THAMBAN
SHRI.SRAVAN M.S.
SHRI.AKHIL RAJ B.
SHRI.VISHNU VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA,
PIN - 678001
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
PIRAYIRI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KODUNTHIRAPULLY,
PIRAYIRI, KERALA, PIN - 678006
3 AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
PIRAYIRI KRISHI BHAVAN, PIRAYIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD, KERALA,
PIN - 678006
4 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY SMT.DEEPA V, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
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. 31542 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:60919
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0229
hectares of land comprised in Survey No.40/2-4 in Block
No.20 in Pirayiri Village, Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad
District. 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.P1 application in Form 5,
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P2 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:60919
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 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:60919
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.P2 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:60919
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.P2 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
hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the
2025:KER:60919
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:60919
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31542/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION,
HAVING APPLICATION NO. 50/2022/995025
DATED 02.06.2022
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, HAVING FILE NO.
4726/2024 DATED 24.07.2024
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH/MAP
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAYIRI
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER HAVING THE FILE
NUMBER 294/2022 DATED 01/10/2022 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO K VALSALAKUMARI
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER HAVING THE FILE
NUMBER 402/2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO. 1 TO K R RAMADAS DATED 28.09.2022
