Kerala High Court
Binoi George vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:62839
WP(C) NO. 41463 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 41463 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BINOI GEORGE,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O GEORGE, CHERUKARA HOUSE , EROOR P.O,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682306
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.SOYUZ
SRI.E.V.BABYCHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,
RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R),
ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,CHOTTANIKKARA,CHOTTANIKKARA P.O.
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682312
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANAYANNOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK,
CHOTTANIKKARA P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
682312
2025:KER:62839
WP(C) NO. 41463 OF 2024
2
5 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE,(KSREC) C BLOCK , VIKAS BHAVAN ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SR.GP SMT. PREEETHA K.K.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62839
WP(C) NO. 41463 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
3.33 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.119/1-4-
2 in Block No.12 of Kanayannoor Village, Kanayannoor
Taluk, covered under Ext.P3 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.P5
application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P6 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
2025:KER:62839
WP(C) NO. 41463 OF 2024
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
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
2025:KER:62839
WP(C) NO. 41463 OF 2024
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 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.P6 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
2025:KER:62839
WP(C) NO. 41463 OF 2024
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 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.P6 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application, in
accordance with the law, by either conducting a
2025:KER:62839
WP(C) NO. 41463 OF 2024
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
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
rmm/20/8/2025
2025:KER:62839
WP(C) NO. 41463 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41463/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3382 OF
2011 DATED 22.12.2011 OF MULAMTHURUTHY
SRO
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. NO.
2335 OF 2008 DATED 20.06.2008 OF
MULAMTHURUTHY SRO
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 26.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4 TH
RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA
BANK OF CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
DATED 28.05.2022
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM
NO. 5 DATED 09.06.2022
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 161/2024
DATED 15.08.2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE SURVEY SKETCH OF 3.33 ARES OF
LAND INCLUDING THE POND OWNED BY THE
PETITIONER COMPRISED IN RE. SY. NO.
119/1 - 4 - 2 IN BLOCK NO. 12 OF
KANAYANNOOR VILLAGE
