Kerala High Court
Indira Balakrishnan vs The Revenue Divisional Ofricer on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 3691 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:54964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3691 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
INDIRA BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 69 YEARS
INDIRA BALAKRISHNAN, W/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,"GOKUL",
INDIRANAGAR KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI., PIN - 682020
BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR
SHRI.K.B.DAYAL
SMT.P.USHAKUMARI
SMT.DEEPA. P.R.
SMT.PALLAVI K.B.
SMT.SONA ROMILDA PODUTHAS
SHRI.BABY K.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFRICER
FORT KOCHI RDO OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING
THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (UNDER PADDY
AND WET LAND ACT) TRIPOONITHURA
REP BY ITS CONVENER THE AGRICULTURE OFRICER,
TRIPOONITHURA. KOCHI, PIN - 682301
*3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
THRIPUNITHURA-682 301.
*(ADDL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
11.04.2025 IN IA NO.2/2025 IN WP(C) NO.3691/2025.)
BY SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
SC- SRI.ROBSON PAUL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3691 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:54964
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9.484
Cents of land comprised in Survey No.742/3 in Nadama
Village, covered under Ext.P1 sale deed. The property is a
converted land and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation.
Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified
the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data
bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and the Rules framed
thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules', for brevity). To exclude the
property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted
Ext.P3 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the
Rules. However, by Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer
has summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for
the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any
2025:KER:54964
independent finding regarding the nature and character
of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 -- the date the Act
came into force. The impugned order, therefore, is
arbitrary and unsustainable in law and liable to be
quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's principal contention is that
the applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is
a converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the
Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected
the same without proper consideration or application of
mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of
judgments of this Court -- including the decisions 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
2025:KER:54964
Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub
Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the
authorised officer is obliged to assess the nature, lie and
character of the land and its suitability for paddy
cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive
criteria to determine whether the property is to be
excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. There is no indication in the order that the
authorised officer has personally inspected the property
or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer, who in turn has relied on the
recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring
Committee, that the impugned order has been passed.
The authorised officer has not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the land as
on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether the
2025:KER:54964
exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the
surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I
hold that the impugned order was passed in
contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid
down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated
due to errors of law and non-application of mind, and is
liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer
is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application as
per the procedure prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P3 application, in accordance with
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of
the property or calling for the satellite pictures as
provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of
the petitioner.
2025:KER:54964
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the
application shall be disposed of within three months
from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other
hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the
property personally, the application shall be disposed
of within two months from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:54964
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3691/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 348/2006
OF TRIPOONITHURA SUB REGISTRY
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE
AREA
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
26/4/2021
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LET
RESPONDENT DATED 04/11/2023
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
20/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
