Kerala High Court
R. Murali vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 36118 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:54966
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. 36118 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 R. MURALI,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. RAMANKUTTY, VALIPARAMBU HOUSE, MUNDUR,MUNDUR
P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678592
2 R. SENTHILKUMAR,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. RAMANKUTTY, VALIPARAMBU HOUSE, MUNDUR,MUNDUR
P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678592
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
SMT.ARUNDHATHI SURESH BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VIDYUT NAGAR,
PARAKKUNNAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE MUNDUR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,
AGRICULTURE OFFICE, MUNDUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678592
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MUNDUR-I VILLAGE OFFICE, MUNDUR P.O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678592
WP(C) NO. 36118 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54966
*4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SENATE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
*(ADDL.RESPONDENT 4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
19-12-2024, IN IA 1/2024 IN WPC 36118/2024)
BY SMT.DEEPA V., GP
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
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. 36118 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:54966
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession of
0.720 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.395/4
in Re-Survey Block No.12 in Mundur-I Village, Palakkad
Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. 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 a Form 5 application, under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the application
without personally inspecting the property. Even though
2025:KER:54966
the petitioner had remitted the prescribed fee to call for
the satellite pictures as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules and the authorised officer has referred to the report
in Ext.P4 order, he has not specifically considered the
findings in the satellite pictures. Furthermore, the order
is devoid of any 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
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' 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.
2025:KER:54966
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
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. It is solely relying on the report of the
Agricultural Officer and purportedly the satellite pictures
received under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, the impugned
order has been passed. But there is no specific finding
regarding the exact nature of the land as per the report
2025:KER:54966
received under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the
authorised officer has merely acted upon the report of the
Agricultural Officer without rendering any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the land as
on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether the
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 the Form 5 application, in accordance
2025:KER:54966
with the law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate
of within three months from the date of production of
a copy of this judgment. He shall either personally
inspect the property or consider the satellite pictures
obtained under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:54966
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36118/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT
DATED 27.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONERS' PLOT.
EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED
21.06.2023 FOR KSREC REPORTS.
EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.4868/2024
DATED 27.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
