Kerala High Court
Dr. Rahul Antony Simon vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 18 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:53399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3837 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DR. RAHUL ANTONY SIMON
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. SIMON JOHN, DOOR NO. 28/3113,
MAMPILLY HOUSE, PONETH TEMPLE ROAD,
KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020
BY ADV SMT.C.K.SHERIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN,KEEZHMAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683105
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KEEZHMAD VILLAGE OFFICE,
KEEZHMAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683105
5 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
(KSREC), VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI. VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.3837 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:53399
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
4.36 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos. 232/3-7
and 232/2-6 of Keezhmad 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.
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. P7
order, the first respondent has perfunctorily rejected
Ext. P3 application, without inspecting the property
directly. Even though the third respondent/Agricultural
Officer had called for Ext. P4 report from the Kerala
WP(C) NO.3837 OF 2025
2025:KER:53399
State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre
('KSREC report', for short), the same was not
considered by the first respondent in Ext. P7 order.
The first respondent has not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the
property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P7 order is
illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior 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.
WP(C) NO.3837 OF 2025
2025:KER:53399
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. P7 order establishes that the authorised
officer has not directly inspected the property. 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
WP(C) NO.3837 OF 2025
2025:KER:53399
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. Even though the Agricultural Officer had called
for Ext. P4 KSREC report, the same was also not
considered by the first respondent. 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. P7 order is quashed.
(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext. P3 application, in
WP(C) NO.3837 OF 2025
2025:KER:53399
accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within 90 days from the date
of the production of a copy of this judgment, by
either directly inspecting the property or
considering the observations in Ext. P4 KSREC
report.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/18.07.25
WP(C) NO.3837 OF 2025
2025:KER:53399
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3837/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED
30.11.2017
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
05.07.2024 FOR THE PERIOD 2024-2025
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE; KEEZHMAD
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM
NO. 5 DATED 08.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH THE FORWARDING SLIP TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT NO. A-
172/2015/KSRE/003772/22 DATED 16.03.2022
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.1614/2023
ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.07.2024 IN WP(C) NO.24551/2024
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BEARING NO.K-28/1614/23 DATED
09.08.2023
