Kerala High Court
Sanil Kumar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52644
WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024
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. 26047 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SANIL KUMAR ,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O N.P RAMAN,KOTTAYAMPURATH (H) PERUMBAAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.S.SHAMLA
SMT.RISNI FARHATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
PATTIMATTOM, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD,
MUVATTUPPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ,
KOOVAPPADYVILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683544
SR.GP. SMT. PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52644
WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5
Ares and 86 Sq.Metres of land comprised in Re-Survey
Nos.325/2 and 325/3-2-2 in Koovappady Village,
Kunnathunadu 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 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.P5 order, the 1st respondent has
perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
2025:KER:52644
WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024
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.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.,
2025:KER:52644
WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024
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.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
2025:KER:52644
WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024
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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/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.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider the Form 5
2025:KER:52644
WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024
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
rmm/16/7/2025
2025:KER:52644
WP(C) NO.26047 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26047/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 9827/2006
DATED 21.12.2006 EXECUTED BY BEENA ELDHO
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT WITH TP.
NO. 7484/2024 FOR THE YEAR 2024 - 2025
DATED 4.6.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
REPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE DATA
BANK ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 9.9.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.
317/2023 DATED 3.7.2023 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
