Kerala High Court
Chandrika. P.K @ Chandra vs Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub ... on 21 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 22743 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
CHANDRIKA. P.K @ CHANDRA,
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O SUKUMARAN, PANDARATHIL HOUSE,
PANDIKKAD ROAD, VIYYUR.P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.P.R.REENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KOLAZHY KRISHI BHAVAN ST.ALPHONSA NAGAR,
THIROOR.P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680581
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.22743 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54019
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 20
cents of land comprised in Survey No.335/1-3 in
Kuttoor Village, Thrissur Taluk, covered under Ext. P1
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. P4 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. P6 order, the first respondent has
perfunctorily rejected Ext. P4 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
2025:KER:54019
He has also not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the property as
on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P6 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, her 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., the
2025:KER:54019
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. P6 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, who in
2025:KER:54019
turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local Level
Monitoring Committee ('LLMC'), the impugned order has
been passed. 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. P6 order is quashed.
(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext. P4 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
2025:KER:54019
expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P4
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
mtk/21.07.25
2025:KER:54019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22743/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED 07.06.2024
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF LAND
DATA BANK PUBLISHED BY KOLAZHY
GRAMAPANCHAYATH BY NOTIFICATION S3-
1324/2020 DATED 14.01.2020, SHOWING THE
NATURE OF THE LAND OF PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
24.01.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN
2023 (4) KLT 524 (MURALEEDHARAN NAIR R,
V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER)
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, FILE NO.1828/2023
DATED 09.06.2023 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR
