Kerala High Court
Girija Bai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 24900 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:54965
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. 24900 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
GIRIJA BAI,
AGED 67 YEARS
W/O. IYYANI THOTTUNGAL BHASKARAN, PANAMBILLY HOUSE,
NADAVARAMBU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680661
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P.
SHRI.RAKESH S MENON
SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKKUDA, MINI CIVIL STATION,
IRINJALAKKUDA,, PIN - 680125
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
VELUKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VELUKKARA KRISHI
BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680683
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VELUKKARA, VELUKKARA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680683
BY SMT.DEEPA V, GP
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. 24900 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54965
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.1538
hectares of land comprised in Survey No.597/1 in
Kottanellur Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, covered under
Exts.P1 and P2 documents and Ext.P3 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 Ext.P6 application in Form 5,
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P7 order,
the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application solely based on the report of the Agricultural
Officer, without either conducting a personal inspection of
the land or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated
2025:KER:54965
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:54965
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.P7 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:54965
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.P7 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:54965
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:54965
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24900/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P- 1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
2796/2013 DATED 11.09.2013 OF KOTTANELLUR
VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT
EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO. 25/2017
DATED 05.01.2017 OF SRO, VADAKKUMKARA
EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND RECEIPT
NO.KL08035003008/2024 DATED 22.06.2024
EXHIBIT P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFIED DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF
KOTTANELLUR VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND
EXHIBIT P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5
DATED 11.05.2023 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P-7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 4041/2024 DATED
12.06.2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
