Kerala High Court
Jayanthi Nandakumar vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 2104 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:55156
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. 2104 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JAYANTHI NANDAKUMAR
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. NANDAKUMER, DWARAKA, 100 FT ROAD, SEKHARIPURAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF
ATTORNEY K. JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN
NAIR, DWARAKA, 100 FT ROAD, SEKHARIPURAM, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT-, PIN - 678010
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.R.VENKATESH
SMT.ASHA P.KURIAKOSE
SMT.LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
2 TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHIBHAVAN, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004
WP(C) NO. 2104 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:55156
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
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. 2104 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:55156
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 2104 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession two
properties having an extent of 0.0405 and 0.0259 hectares of
land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.38/2-14, 38/9-5, 38/51,
38/8 and 40/2-3 in Block No.20 of Pirayiri Village, Palakkad
Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 and P4 documents and Exts.P2
and P5 land tax receipts. The properties are converted lands
and are unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the properties 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 properties from the data
bank, the petitioner had submitted Exts.P10 and P11
applications in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
WP(C) NO. 2104 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:55156
However, by Exts.P12 and P13 orders, the authorised officer
has summarily rejected the applications without either
conducting a personal inspection of the lands or calling for
the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the lands 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 Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's principal contention is that the
applied properties are not cultivable paddy fields but are
converted plots. Nonetheless, the properties have been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the Form
5 applications, the authorised officer has rejected the same
without proper consideration or application of mind.
WP(C) NO. 2104 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:55156
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 Exts.P12 and P13 orders 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 properties 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
WP(C) NO. 2104 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:55156
recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee
(LLMC), that the impugned order has been passed. The
authorised officer has not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the lands as on the
relevant date. There is also no finding whether the exclusion
of the properties 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 orders are 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 applications as per the procedure
prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Exts.P12 and P13 orders are quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
WP(C) NO. 2104 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:55156
reconsider the Form 5 applications, 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.
(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
SCB.25.07.25.
WP(C) NO. 2104 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:55156
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2104/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED JENMOM ASSIGNMENT
DEED NO. 5436/2014 DATED 29.09.2014 OF SRO
PALAKKAD
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 14.10.2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
24.10.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.
5435/2014 OF SRO, PALAKAKD DATED 29.9.2014
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.10.2022
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
30.10.2022
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
NOTIFICATION OF DATA BANK DATED 4.06.2011 IN
THE PIRAYIRI GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P8 A FEW PHOTOGRAPHS OF HOUSES ADJOINING THE
PLOTS COVERED BY EXT P1 DOCUMENT
Exhibit P9 A FEW PHOTOGRAPHS OF HOUSES ADJOINING THE
PLOTS COVERED BY EXT P4
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 5 IN
RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT P1
DOCUMENT DATED 13.12.2022
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 5 IN
RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT P4
DOCUMENT DATED 13.12.2022
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2024 THE
RDO HAS REJECTED EXT P10 APPLICATION
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2024
BEARING FILE NO. 5946/2024 THE RDO HAS
REJECTED EXT P11 APPLICATION
