Kerala High Court
Kannan M vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 15 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52158
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
KANNAN M,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. MANI, RESIDING AT 'DEVI SADHAN',
VADAKKANTHARA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678012
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
SMT.ANJANA A.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VIDYUT NAGAR,
PARAKKUNAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE PIRAYIRI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PIRAYIRI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678019
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PIRAYIRI VILLAGE OFFICE, PIRAYIRI P.O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678019
2025:KER:52158
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
2
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA SENATE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP
SRI.VISHNU S., SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52158
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.4783 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0527
Hectares of land comprised in Survey No.566/23 in
Boock No.19 of Pirayi Village, Palakkad Taluk. The
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for
paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and
included it in the data bank. To exclude the property
from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P1
application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008
('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned Ext.P2 order,
the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P1
application, without inspecting the property directly or
2025:KER:52158
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P2 order is
illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that, his
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously
classified in the data bank as paddy land. Even though
the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, to
exclude the property from the data bank, the same has
been rejected by the authorised officer without any
application of mind.
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this
Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie,
character and fitness of the land, and whether the land
2025:KER:52158
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e.,
the date of coming into force of the Act, are the
relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue
Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data
bank (read the decisions of this Court 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 and others (2021
(1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P2 order establishes that the authorised
officer has not directly inspected the property or called
for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the
property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of
the property from the data bank would adversely affect
2025:KER:52158
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely
relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the
impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied
that the impugned order has been passed without any
application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed
and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the
matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to
the principles of law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions and the materials available on
record.
Accordingly, 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 Ext.P1 application, in accordance with
law. It would be up to the authorised officer to
either directly inspect the property or call for
satellite images, as per the procedure provided
2025:KER:52158
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
under Rule 4(4f), at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite
images, he shall consider Ext.P1 application, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within three months from the
date of the receipt of the satellite images. In case
he directly inspects the property, he shall dispose
of the application within two months from the date
of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:52158
WP(C) NO. 4783 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4783/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
09.08.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO DELETE THE ENTRY CONCERNING HIS PLOT
FROM THE DATA BANK.
EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
01.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
