Sadhikali K vs Revenue Divisional Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 1159 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sadhikali K vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 18 July, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                2025:KER:53427


          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. 31476 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

         SADHIKALI K.,
         AGED 62 YEARS
         S/O. ABDUL HAMEED HAJI, KOLAKKADAN HOUSE,
         PANNIKODE P.O., MUKKAM-VIA,
         KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673602

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
         SMT.ARCHANA K.S.
         SHRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI.K
         SHRI.NOEL EALIAS


RESPONDENTS:

    1    REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

    2    VILLAGE OFFICER,
         KAKKAD VILLAGE, KARASSERY,
         MUKKAM-VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673602

    3    LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
         KARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
         KARASSERY P.O., MUKKAM-VIA,
         KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
         THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
         KRISHI BHAVAN, KARASSERY P.O.,
         KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673602

    4    KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
 WP(C) NO.31476 of 2024

                                 2
                                                         2025:KER:53427
           CENTRE,
           VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
           ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033

     5     KARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
           KARASSERY P.O., MUKKAM VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 673602

     6     AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
           KRISHI BHAVAN, KARASSERY, KARASSERY P.O.,
           KOZHIKODE. ( IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
           18.07.2025 IN I.A. NO. 5 OF 2025)

           BY ADVS.
           SHRI.PRASHANTH KUMAR G.C.
           SRI.R.SUDHISH
           SMT.M.MANJU



OTHER PRESENT:

             SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT. PREETHA K.K.,
             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.31476 of 2024

                               3
                                               2025:KER:53427
                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025

The petitioner is the owner in possession of

26.9712 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos. 45/1

and 45/1P in Block No. 1 of Kakkad 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. P12 order, the first respondent has perfunctorily

rejected the Form 5 application, without directly

inspecting the property. Even though the additional

sixth respondent/Agricultural Officer had submitted a

report to exclude the property from the data bank, and WP(C) NO.31476 of 2024

2025:KER:53427 Ext. P11 report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing

and Environment Centre ('KSREC report,' for short)

concluded that the applied property is under mixed

vegetation in the data of 2003 and the said land

pattern has continued with the building/structure in

the data of 2014, 2018, and 2020, the first respondent

has rejected the application. The first respondent has

not rendered any independent finding regarding the

nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008.

Hence, Ext. P12 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is

liable to be quashed.

2. In the statement filed by the first respondent, it

is stated that, the second respondent had submitted a

report to exclude the petitioner's property from the data

bank. But since the first respondent was not fully

convinced that the entire land had been converted prior

to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland

Act, he called for Ext. P11 KSREC report, wherein it is WP(C) NO.31476 of 2024

2025:KER:53427 found that the plot was under crops/paddy land with

mixed vegetation on the east side in the data of 2003,

and the said pattern has continued with

building/structure in the data of 2014, 2018, and 2020. It

was clear from the site inspection that there was no

building/structure on the applied land. The building

mentioned in the report is situated in the adjacent

property. Therefore, the property cannot be excluded

from the data bank.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

4. The petitioner's specific case is that, his

property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy

cultivation. Even though in Ext. P8 report, the

Agricultural Officer has directed that the property is to

be excluded from the data bank, and Ext. P11 KSREC

report specifically found that the property is with mixed

vegetation in the data of 2003 and there is a WP(C) NO.31476 of 2024

2025:KER:53427 building/structure in the data of 2014, 2018, and 2020.

But, the authorised officer has rejected the Form 5

application. On the contrary, the authorised officer has

stated that, even though in Ext. P11 KSREC report it is

stated that there is a building, in the site inspection, it

was found that the building is in the adjacent property.

Therefore, he was convinced that the property cannot be

excluded from the data bank.

5. A careful reading of Ext. P12 order substantiates

that, the authorised officer has not directly inspected the

property. On what basis he has stated in the statement

that the site inspection was conducted, and by whom, is

not discernible.

6. Going by Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, the

authorised officer is obliged to either inspect the

property in person or call for the KSREC report. So as

long as the authorised officer does not conduct a direct

inspection, he is obliged to accept Ext. P11 KSREC WP(C) NO.31476 of 2024

2025:KER:53427 report. Going by Ext. P11 KSREC report, the property is

found to be with mixed vegetation in the year 2003, and

there is no conclusion that the property is suitable for

paddy cultivation. Similarly, in the data of 2014, it is

found that there is a building/structure in the property.

The notes of inspection have not adverted to Ext. P12

order.

7. 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 WP(C) NO.31476 of 2024

2025:KER:53427 Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,

Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).

8. In light of the afore stated findings and the law

laid down by this Court in afore-cited decisions, and the

fact that the authorised officer has not directly

conducted the inspection as envisaged under rule 4(4f)

of the Rules, I am convinced that Ext. P12 order has

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. P12 order is quashed.

(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is

directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, in WP(C) NO.31476 of 2024

2025:KER:53427 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 accepting

the conclusions arrived at in Ext. P11 KSREC

report.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/18.07.25 WP(C) NO.31476 of 2024

2025:KER:53427

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31476/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION BEARING TIN NO.32111036065 C DATED 9.5.2007, ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.277/14-15 DATED 19.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, VALID UP TO 31.03.2015. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, DATED 28.04.2015. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, DATED 21.05.2016. EXHIBIT P3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, DATED 10.04.2017. EXHIBIT P3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, DATED 16.04.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST CERTIFICATE DATED 19.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, REGARDING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE TIMBER STOCK YARD OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, RECORDED ON 14.08.2024.

EXHIBIT P7            TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
                      COURT    DATED   8.2.2024   IN    W.P.(C)
                      NO.4960/2024.
EXHIBIT P8            TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.01.2024

SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID INFORMATION DATED WP(C) NO.31476 of 2024

2025:KER:53427 09.08.2024 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON LAND USE CHANGE, SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE PETITIONER COMPRISED IN SY.NOS.45/1 AND 45/1P IN KAKKAD VILLAGE.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE NO.287/2024 DATED 09.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P13 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DETAILING THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. EXHIBIT-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MOVEMENT DETAILS OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 1.2.2022 MAINTAINED AT THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 18.12.2023.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.12.2019 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY DATED 30.12.2019. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1843/2024 DATED 11.8.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE NO.RDOKKD/148/2022-C7 DATED 24.9.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.5022/2023 DATED 11.8.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE NO.2438/2023 DATED 28.6.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2-5146/21 DATED 30.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C7/2965/2022 DATED 12.8.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

WP(C) NO.31476 of 2024

2025:KER:53427 EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C7/3140/2021 DATED 30.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C7/4141/2021 DATED 27.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.96/2024 DATED 26.2.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C4/2279/20 DATED 16.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE NO.5021/2023 DATED 6.9.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.