Kerala High Court
Mohanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52722
WP(C) NO. 4485 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. 4485 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MOHANAN,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.APPUNNI, KARUVADI HOUSE, THEYYANGAD, PONNANI,
EZHUVATHURUTHY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679577
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SMT.SMITHA BABU
SHRI.PRANAV
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, EZHUVATHURUTHY, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679586
3* THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
EZHUVATHURUTHY VILLAGE, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN-679 586.
*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.02.2025
IN IA NO.1/2025 IN WP(C) NO.4485/2025
2025:KER:52722
WP(C) NO. 4485 OF 2025
2
SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP
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:52722
WP(C) NO. 4485 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.4485 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 48.58
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.1-2 in Block No.9 in
Ezhuvathuruthy Village in Ponnani Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 possession certificate. The property is a
converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
However, the respondents have erroneously classified
the property as 'wetland' and included it in the data
bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the
petitioner had submitted a Form-5 application under
Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the
impugned Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected the Form-5 application, without
2025:KER:52722
WP(C) NO. 4485 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.P3 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 wetland. 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
2025:KER:52722
WP(C) NO. 4485 OF 2025
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.P3 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:52722
WP(C) NO. 4485 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, he has relied
on the report of the Agricultural Officer and passed the
impugned order. In fact, going by the materials on
records it is seen that the property is classified as
wetland. In view of Rule 4(4e) of the Rules, if the
property is classified as wetland then the jurisdictional
officer is the Village Officer and not the Agricultural
Officer. 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
2025:KER:52722
WP(C) NO. 4485 OF 2025
following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form-5 application after calling for a
report from the additional 3rd respondent, who is
directed to submit the report within one month
from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
(iii) On receipt of the report from the additional 3 rd
respondent, the authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form-5 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.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:52722
WP(C) NO. 4485 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4485/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EZHUVATHURUTHY
VILLAGE DATED, 10-1-2025
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST
RESPONDENT AS NO.3332/2023 DATED, 23-02-
