Kerala High Court
M Gokuldas vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52564
WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023
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. 43988 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
M GOKULDAS,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O LATE K.P. CHEKKAI, DAFFODILS, PALLICKAL,
MALAPURAM, PIN - 676634
BY ADV SHRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE AND SUB COLLECTOR,CIVIL
STATION JUMA MASJID, SH29, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020
3 AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN , KAKODI,KOZHIKODE BALUSSERY RD,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673611
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAKKODI VILLAGE,KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN -
673611
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52564
WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
4.228 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.14/1 in
Kakkodi Village, Kozhikode 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 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.P2 order, the 2nd respondent has
perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without
directly inspecting the property. Even though the 2 nd
respondent had called for Ext.P1 report from the
Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment
2025:KER:52564
WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023
Centre(KSREC), wherein it is specifically found that
the property is under mixed
vegetation/plantation/trees with building/structures in
the data of 2007, the 2nd respondent has rejected the
application. 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
2025:KER:52564
WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023
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 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. Instead,
he had called for KSREC report. In the said report, it is
specifically found that the property is under mixed
2025:KER:52564
WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023
vegetation/plantation/trees with building/structures in
the data of 2007. Notwithstanding the specific
observations in the said report, the 2nd respondent,
without rendering 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, has rejected the Form 5 application by
solely relying on the report of 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
following manner:
2025:KER:52564
WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023
(i). Ext.P2 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, in
accordance with law, and as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within 90 days 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:52564
WP(C) NO. 43988 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43988/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO.
A/172/2015/KSREC/004544/2022 FROM THE
KSREC DATED 21.05.2022
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE
NO.RDOKKD/1936/2021-C3 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 22.06.2023
