[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
K.Sankaran Kutty vs State Of Kerala on 6 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
SATURDAY,THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
K.SANKARAN KUTTY,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O K.KARAMBAN, SARANYA,PROFESSOR M.L. JOSE ROAD,
KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020
BY ADV SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT
KOCHI, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
4 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.),
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, KUREEKKAD, KUREEKAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682312
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
2
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOTTANIKARA, CHOTTANIKARA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312
7 THE COCHIN SHIPYARD STAFF CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE
CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD NO. E 346,
PERUMANNOOR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 682015
SMT.PREETHA K.K., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.12347 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ,
direction or order calling for the records leading to
Exhibit P11 and to quash the same
ii. Issue a declaration that the lands having an extent
of 03.57 Ares in Re-survey No. 78/2-4 in Block No.
11 of Kureekkad Village in Kanayannoor Taluk is
not a paddy land, in view of description in Exhibit
P1,issuance of P4 and P5, entries in Exhibit P7 and
the photographs produced as Exhibit P12..
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
direction or order directing the 4th respondent to
pass orders removing the subject lands having an
extent of 03.57 Ares in Re-survey No. 78/2-4 in
Block No. 11 of Kureekkad Village, from the data
bank.
iv. Dispense the petitioner from producing the English
translation of the vernacular documents produced
in the writ petition.
v. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(SIC)
2. Petitioner purchased an extent of 3.57 Ares (8.820
cents) of properties in Resurvey No.78/2-4 in Block No.11 of
Kureekkad Village from the Cochin Shipyard Staff Co-operative
House Construction Society, from out of 6 Acres developed by
them is the submission. According to the petitioner, the said
Society moved the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Land
Utilization Order (for short, KLU Order), which led to Exts.P4
and P5. According to the petitioner, the land is included in the
data bank with remarks as "10 years". Hence the petitioner
submitted application in Form-5, which was rejected by 3™
respondent. The petitioner challenged the same before this
Court. As per Ext.P10, this Court set aside Ext.P8. Ignoring
the directions in Ext.P10 judgment, the 4th respondent again
dismissed the Form-5 application, as evident by Ext.P11.
According to the petitioner, the land is not a paddy land in view
of the entries in Ext.P1 tax receipt, Ext.P7 data bank, Exts.P4
and P5 orders under the KLU Order, Ext.P9 KSREC report and
also in the light of Ext.P12 photographs. The counsel for the
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
petitioner also relied on Ext.P13 commission report. Hence this
writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused Ext.P10 judgment. It will be
better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P10 judgment:
"5. Petitioners' application in Form 5 of the
Rules was rejected relying on the Agricultural
Officer's report. The said report stated that
petitioners land need not be excluded from the data
bank. Petitioners rely upon the KSREC report
produced as Ext.P7 and asserts that the surrounding
areas are well-developed with buildings on them and
also that the impugned order has not referred to the
suitability for cultivation as a paddy land.
6. In the decision in Arthasasthra Ventures
(India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591]
and in Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional
Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], this Court had observed
that the RDO cannot merely follow the report of the
Agricultural Officer or the LLMC without any
independent assessment of the status of the land.
This Court had also observed that while considering
an application filed under Form 5, the Authority
must consider whether the removal of the property
from the data bank will affect paddy cultivation in
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
the land and also whether it will affect the nearby
paddy fields. Similarly, in the decision in Aparna Sasi
Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer Irinjalakuda
[2023 (6) KHC 83] it has been observed that when
the competent authority considers a Form-5
application, the predominant consideration should
be whether the land which is sought to be excluded
from data bank is one where paddy cultivation is
possible and feasible including the existence of
irrigation facilities.
7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals
that the aforementioned specific aspects have not
been adverted to, and instead, the application has
been rejected solely on the basis of the report of the
Agricultural Officer. There is also no finding that the
land is suitable for paddy cultivation and whether
there is any paddy land suitable for cultivation in the
nearby areas. Evidently, there is no independent
application of mind to the relevant circumstances,
and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside and a fresh consideration be made.
8. In the above circumstances, Ext.P8 is
quashed and the second respondent is directed to re-
consider the Form 5 application submitted by the
petitioners and issue orders afresh after considering
the report of KSREC and other relevant factors
stipulated in Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The order, as
directed above, shall be issued within a period of
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment."
5. This Court also perused Ext.P4, which is the decision
by the Panchayat recommending reclamation based on the
application submitted by the Society from whom the petitioner
purchased the property. Ext.P5 is the receipt showing the
payment of conversion charge. Ext.P7 is the data bank. In the
data bank, serial No.158 is the property of the petitioner in
which it is stated that the conversion date is ten years back.
Ext.P9 is the KSREC report. It will be better to extract the
observations & conclusion in Ext.P9.
"The analysis has been carried out from all
available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different
satellite data sets (2006, 2008, 2011, 2013 and
2017) for survey numbers.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the plot 78/1 and
78/2 was observed as paddy. The survey plot was
observed under fallow land and a mud road passing
through eastern part in the imagery of year 2006.
The same landuse practices was continued in the
imageries of years 2008, 2011 and 2013. In the
imagery of year 2017 some vegetation was seen with
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
the road tarred.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the plots 78/3
were observed as paddy. The survey plots were
observed as fallow land in the imagery of years 2006
and 2008. The same landuse practices was continued
in the imagery of year 2011. In year 2013, soil
exposure is observed in south west part and middle
portion as wet. In year 2017 imagery some trees
were observed in the south, south-west part.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the plots 78/4,
78/5 and 78/6 were observed as paddy. The survey
plot was observed as fallow land in the imagery of
year 2006. The same landuse practices was observed
to continue in the imageries of subsequent years
2008, 2011, 2013 7) and 2017."
6. The petitioner submitted that a Commission was
appointed by this Court in WP(C) No.13090/2025, which was
filed by the similarly placed persons. The Commissioner filed
Ext.P13 report and Ext.P12 is the photographs produced by the
Commissioner along with the commission report. This Court
perused the same. The counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, in the commission report, there is a finding that coconut
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
trees aged more than 10 years are there in the property. The
Government Pleader submitted that the Commissioner is not
expertised in assessing the age of the coconut trees. But it is a
fact that aged coconut trees are there in the property. The
question to be decided while considering the Form-5
application is whether the property is paddy land as on 2008
and whether the property can be used for paddy cultivation as
on today. This Court in Line properties Pvt.Ltd. v. Revenue
Divisional Officer, Ernakulam [2025 KHC 1637] observed
like this:
"6. Even otherwise, the fact that the
property was described in the Data Bank as
"reclaimed land", by itself indicate that, the
authorities concerned, had applied their mind,
conducted an enquiry while preparing the Data Bank
and entered into a finding that the property is not a
"paddy land" or a "wetland". Therefore, the entry of
the said property is an erroneous entry as observed
above, which itself is to be removed, without any
further enquiry
7. Apart from the above, as rightly pointed
out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P3
notification of the Data Bank itself is not in the
format as described in Form 4 of the Paddy Land
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
Rules. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points
out that, in Basil v. Local Level Monitoring
Committee [2024 (1) KHC 28] and Anu Mathew v
Revenue Divisional Officer [2022 (6) KLT 93],
directions were issued by this Court to remove such
erroneous entry even without insisting for Form 5
application, under similar circumstances. Further, in
W.A. No.211/2017, a Division Bench of this Court
made certain observations to the effect that, in cases
where the property is included in the Data Bank as
"converted land", it would only mean that, the
conversion of the property took place prior to the
coming into force of the Act.
8. In such circumstances, in the light of the
principles laid down by this Court in the above-said
decisions, the respondents are bound to remove the
property of the petitioner from the Data Bank, as the
same is entered therein with a description as
converted land. As mentioned above, it is only an
erroneous entry, and the same has to be removed.
However, since the petitioner has already submitted
Ext.P4 application in Form 5, even though the same
was not necessary, I am of the view that, for issuing
necessary orders in this regard for removing the
property from the Data Bank, the 2nd respondent
can act upon Ext.P4.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is
disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take up
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
Ext.P4 and to pass necessary orders removing the
property of the petitioner from the Data Bank, in the
light of the observations made by this Court and also
taking note of the principles laid down in the
decisions referred to above. Necessary orders shall
be passed within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
7. Admittedly as per the data bank itself, the property is
shown as converted ten years back. In such circumstances, this
Court set aside the impugned order and delivered Ext.P10
judgment. Thereafter the impugned order is passed. I am
dissatisfied with the manner in which the authorised officer
considered the Form-5 application after remand. Absolutely
there is no discussion about these facts in the impugned order.
It is a case in which this Court has to allow Form-5 application.
I am sending this back for fresh consideration because the
officer should know how to pass an order in a Form-5
application. This Court in Vinumon v. District Collector
[2025 (6) KLT 275], considered this question in detail. The
authorised officer should reconsider the matter in the light of
the observation in this judgment and also in the light of the
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
dictum laid down in Vinumon's case (supra).
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P11 is set aside.
2. The 4th respondent/Authorised Officer is
directed to reconsider the Form-5 application
in the light of the observation in this judgment
and also in the light of the principle laid down
in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6)
KLT 275], as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
JV
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 06.12.2025
Judgment dictated 06.12.2025
Draft Judgment placed 06.12.2025
Final Judgment 08.12.2025
uploaded
2025:KER:94582
WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 12347 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
27.08.2022
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 534 OF
2003 OF S.R.O. MULAMTHURUTHY DATED
01.01.2003
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2234
OF 1997 OF S.R.O. MULAMTHURUTHY DATED
14.08.1997
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
CHOTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED
25.03.2004 OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
06.04.2004 ISSUED BY THE CHOTTANIKARA
GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE
LAYOUT OF THE PLOTS DATED NIL
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK DATED NIL
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING BEARING
NO. K11/4122/2022 DATED 01.09.2022
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT RECEIVED BY
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FROM KSRSEC
DATED 08.03.2019
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO. 17445 OF 2023 DATED 10.10.2023
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.
RDOCHN/4122/2022-K11 DATED 03.03.2025
Exhibit P12 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN
RECENTLY
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN W.P.(C)
NO. 13090 OF 2025
