Kerala High Court
Anurag vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 29 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:55936
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. 22649 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ANURAG,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. VASU .A.,RESIDING AT PARAKKAL VEEDU,
PUTHANTHOTTAM, CHATHAMANGALAM P.O.,
CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678508
BY ADVS.
SHRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SMT.B.R.SINDU
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
SHRI.V.ROHITH
SMT.AFNA V.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NENMARA VILLAGE OFFICE, NENMARA,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678508
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KRISHNAPURAM GRAMAM ROAD,
KRISHNAPURAM,NENMARA,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678508
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
[CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
WP(C) NO.22649 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:55936
PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT,2008]
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
(THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN
KRISHNAPURAM GRAMAM ROAD, KRISHNAPURAM,
NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678508
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, 1 ST FLOOR,
NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE
CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
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.22649 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:55936
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
0.0281 hectars of land comprised in Re-Survey No.
836/1 in Block No. 54 in Nemmara Village, Chittur
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 a Form 5
application under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite
2025:KER:55936
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:55936
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.P3 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 without
rendering any independent finding regarding the
condition of the land as on the relevant date. There is
also no consideration of whether the exclusion of the
2025:KER:55936
property would prejudicially affect the surrounding
paddy fields or the larger agricultural ecosystem.
6. In light of the above findings, I hold that Ext.P3
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.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application in accordance with
law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection 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:55936
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.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/29.07.25
2025:KER:55936
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22649/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 87/2015
OF SRO, NEMMARA PALAKKAD DISTRICT
EXECUTED ON 13.01.2015 IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST BASIC TAX
RECEIPT DATED 23.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2022
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
WRITTEN ORDER
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.09.2017 MADE IN W.P.(C).NO 16898/2017
MADE BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEDURE FOR
GETTING SATELLITE DATA INFORMATION AND
REPORT FROM KSRSEC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
