Kerala High Court
Sarath Achuthan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 43938 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:54967
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. 43938 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SARATH ACHUTHAN,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. N ACHUTHAN, RESIDING AT 'SARANYA', PERUVEMBA
P.O, PERUVEMBA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678531
BY ADVS. SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VIDYUT NAGAR,
PARAKKUNNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE KANNADI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,
KRISHI BHAVAN, HEALTH CENTRE ROAD, KANNADI P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678701
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANNADI-II VILLAGE OFFICE, KANNADI P.O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678701
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SENATE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
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. 43938 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54967
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0364
hectares of land comprised in Survey No.32/75 in Block
No.50 in Kannadi-II Village, Palakkad Taluk. 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.P1 application in Form 5,
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. But, by Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:54967
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. 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
petitioner and the learned 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:54967
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.P2 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. 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
2025:KER:54967
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.P2 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 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.
(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
2025:KER:54967
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:54967
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43938/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
14.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
DELETE THE ENTRY CONCERNING HIS PLOT FROM
THE DATA BANK.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2024
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P3 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PLOT ALONG WITH
THE BUILDINGS AROUND.
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2023
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
