Kerala High Court
Asiya vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54109
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. 13588 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ASIYA,
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O MOHAMED SHIBU, DARUSALAM,
PALODE,PACHA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.JATHIN DAS
SHRI.ARUN S.
SRI.T.A.PRAKASH
SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PALODE VILLAGE, PALODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NANNIYODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562
WP(C) NO.13588 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54109
5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
NANNIYODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
NANNIYODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V
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.13588 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:54109
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9
Ares and 53 sq. meters of land comprised in Re-Survey
Nos. 332/20, 332/31, 332/40 and 332/41 in Block No.
13 of Palode Village, Nedumangad Taluk, covered
under Ext. P3 land tax receipt. Out of the above extent
of land, 8 Ares and 20 sq. meters of land comprised in
Re-Survey No.332/20 was erroneously included in the
data bank as 'paddy land'. To exclude the said 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. P6 order,
the second respondent has perfunctorily rejected the
Form 5 application. Subsequently, the petitioner was
directed to submit Ext. P8 application in Form 5
2025:KER:54109
afresh. But, the Ext. P8 application was also rejected
by Ext. P10 order. The second respondent 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. Hence, Exts. P6 and P10
orders are illegal and arbitrary, and are liable to be
quashed.
2. In the statement filed by the second
respondent, it is stated that, the Agricultural Officer has
reported that the petitioner's property is waterlogged
and marshy. There is a rivulet flowing through the
property. Therefore, the Agricultural Officer has
recommended not to exclude the property from the data
bank. There is no error in Ext. P6 order. Ext. P8
application was rejected by Ext. P10 order because it
was filed like an appeal against Ext. P6 order. There is
2025:KER:54109
no provision in the Act to file an appeal. Hence, the writ
petition may be dismissed.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. 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.
5. 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
2025:KER:54109
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)).
6. 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 after the submission of the Form 5 application.
The authorised officer 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
2025:KER:54109
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 and consequential
Ext. P10 order is also set aside.
(ii). The second respondent/authorised officer
is directed to reconsider Ext. P8 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.
2025:KER:54109
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P8
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:54109
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13588/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
2263/2007 OF PALODE SRO DATED 21.12.2007
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 22.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE PALODE
VILLAGE OFFICER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
6.6.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PALODE
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 16.02.2022
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE
ADJACENT PROPERTY DATED 11.8.2023 ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PALODE
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 14.9.2023
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT (KERALA
STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE) DATED 5.7.2021
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWLY SUBMITTED FORM-5
BEFORE THE RDO DATED 11.11.2022
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RDO DATED
12.3.2024
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED
08.01.2024
