Kerala High Court
Divakaran vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 14116 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:52530
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. 14116 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DIVAKARAN,
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN, MANACKAPARAMBIL(H), KARINJALIKKAD,
MANJAPRA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683581
BY ADV SMT.M.S.SHAMLA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MANJAPRA VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683581
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURE OFFICE,MANJAPRA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683581
BY SMT.JESSY S SALIM, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 14116 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:52530
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 35
Ares and 20 sqm of land comprised in Re-Survey
Nos.365/14 and365/3 in Manjapra Village, Aluva Taluk,
covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. 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.P4 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.P5 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He
2025:KER:52530
has also not rendered any independent finding regarding
the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008.
Hence, Ext.P5 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 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
2025:KER:52530
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.P5 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 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
2025:KER:52530
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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 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 under Rule 4(4f), at the expense
of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite
images, he shall consider Ext.P4 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
2025:KER:52530
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
NAB
2025:KER:52530
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14116/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 469/1982
DATED 25/01/1982 OF ANGAMALY SRO
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE
YEAR 2023-2024 DATED 07/10/2023 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOR OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF PUBLISHED DATA
BANK BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 BEARING NO
1/2022/934723 DATED 14/02/2022
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING FILE
NO.251/2022 DATED 19/10/2022
