Kerala High Court
Suresh vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52762
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SURESH,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. CHATHU, MANAPARAMBIL
HOUSE,THUMBUR.P.O.,THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680662
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.RAJESH
SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
1ST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION RD,IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR DIST., PIN - 680125
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST., PIN -
680121
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, P.O.IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
DIST., PIN - 680121.
2025:KER:52762
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
2
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, CHEMMANDA ROAD,
IRINJALAKUDA NORTH, THRISSUR DIST., PIN - 680125
SMT.DEEPA V., GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52762
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.7904 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.76
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.673/1-18 in
Manavalassery Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, covered
under Ext.P1 sale deed. 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.P3 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.P4 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P3 application, without
2025:KER:52762
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
inspecting the property directly or 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.P4 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
2025:KER:52762
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie,
character and fitness of the land, and whether the land 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.P4 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
2025:KER:52762
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of
the property from the data bank would adversely affect
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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P3 application, in accordance with
law. It would be up to the authorised officer to
2025:KER:52762
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
either directly inspect the property or call for
satellite images, as per the procedure provided
under Rule 4(4f), at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite
images, he shall consider Ext.P3 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:52762
WP(C) NO. 7904 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7904/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO:2329/2005 OF IRINJALAKUDA SUB REGISTRY
OFFICE DATED 28.9.2005
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 9.5.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
12.5.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
FORM 5 OF THE RULE 2008
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
DATED 7.11.2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
