Kerala High Court
Sarath Kunnathodi vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub ... on 29 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:55959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40556 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SARATH KUNNATHODI,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. SIVASANKARAN K.,KUNNATHODI HOUSE,
KOZHIKKOTTIRI P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SIVASANKARAN K., KUNNATHODI HOUSE,
KOZHIKKOTTIRI P.O., PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD,, PIN - 679303
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.V.VARGHESE
SHRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.S.A.ANAND
SMT.K.N.REMYA
SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
SHRI.FAIRUZ M.
SMT.ASWATHY N.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,
OTTAPPALAM, RDO OFFICE, PALAKKAD P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
MUTHUTHALA, KRISHI BHAVAN,
MUTHUTHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 679303
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MUTHUTHALA, MUTHUTHALA VILLAGE OFFICE,
KOZHIKKOTTIRI P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679303
4 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
(KSREC) C BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO.40556 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:55959
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V.,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.40556 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:55959
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
4.35 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 335/6/2
in Block No. 26 in Muthuthala Village, Pattambi Taluk,
covered under Ext. P2 land tax receipt. The property is
a converted plot and 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.P7 application in
Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P8 order, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite
2025:KER:55959
imagery, as specifically mandated 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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
2025:KER:55959
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent
authority 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 merits
exclusion from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P8 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 directly inspected 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, who in turn
has relied on the recommendation of the Local Level
Monitoring Committee ('LLMC'), without rendering any
independent finding regarding the condition of the land
as on the relevant date. There is also no consideration of
2025:KER:55959
whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially
affect the surrounding paddy fields or the larger
agricultural ecosystem.
6. In light of the above findings, I hold that Ext.P8
order has been issued in contravention of the statutory
mandate and judicial precedents. The order is vitiated
due to non-application of mind and is liable to be
quashed and the authorised officer be directed to
reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure
prescribed under the Act and Rules.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P8 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P7 application in accordance with law.
The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal
inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the
satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
2025:KER:55959
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 personally inspect the
property, the application shall be considered and
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.
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/29.07.25
2025:KER:55959
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40556/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE NAME OF
HIS FATHER SRI.SIVASANKARAN K.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT
NO.KL09061707337/2024 OF MUTHUTHALA
VILLAGE OFFICE, ISSUED ON 24.08.2024.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 26.08.2024 FROM THE MUTHUTHALA
VILLAGE OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
DATA BANK IN WHICH THE LAND OWNED BY THE
PETITIONER IS INCLUDED
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER TO SHOW THE
LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER TO SHOW THE
LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.5
DATED 26.07.2022, SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.2247/2023
DATED 17.10.2023 REJECTED EXHIBIT P7
APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
