Kerala High Court
Anto Poulose vs Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:62956
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. 2230 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANTO POULOSE,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. POULOSE, THEKKUMPURAM HOUSE,
NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680301
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
SMT.P.K.MINIMOLE
SHRI.A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
SHRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM
SHRI.G.MOTILAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA
1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION RD, ANNEXE,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680125
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) THRISSUR
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER NENMANIKKARA,
KRISHIBHAVAN, NENMANIKKARA,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680562
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2230 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:62956
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
91.21 Ares of land comprised in various survey
numbers in Nenmanikkara Village, Mukundapuram
Taluk covered under Ext. P1 land tax receipt. Out of
the above extent of land, 30.35 Ares of land comprised
in Survey Nos. 505/3-8 and 505/3-9 covered under
Exts. P2 and P3 sale deeds have been erroneously
classified as 'paddy land' and included 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.P8 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
2025:KER:62956
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
as specifically 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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
2025:KER:62956
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 competent
authority 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 merits
exclusion from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P8 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 directly inspected the property or
referring to the satellite pictures as mandated under
Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of
the Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has
been passed. The authorised officer has not rendered
2025:KER:62956
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 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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P8 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P5 application, in accordance with law,
as expeditiously as possible within 90 days from the date
2025:KER:62956
of production of a copy of this judgment. It would be up
to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the
property or refer to Ext. P6 KSREC report to arrive at his
decision.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/20.08.25
2025:KER:62956
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2230/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
01.06.2023
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 5576/95 DATED
30.08.1995 OF SRO NELLAYI
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 5970/95 DATED
21.09.1995 OF SRO NELLAYI
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3054/2023
DATED 27.05.2023
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
HAVING FILE NO. 5/2023/1019950 DATED
11.04.2024
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF KSREC REPORT NO. A-172/2015/
KSREC/005073/23 DATED 14.07.2023
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 07.03.2024
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 7845/2024
DATED 30.12.2024
