Kerala High Court
Sivaraman vs The State Of Kerala on 29 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 40737 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:56173
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. 40737 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
SIVARAMAN,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS LAKSHMI NIVAS,
THOTTEKKATTU LANE, POONKUNNAM P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680002
BY ADV SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA ,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P
O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MINI CIVIL
STATION, IRINJALAKUDA P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680121
3 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, PORATHISSERY
AGRICULTURE OFFICE, PORATHISSERY P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680121
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 40737 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:56173
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 40737 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.24 Ares of
land comprised in Survey No.1063/part of Porathissery Village,
Thrissur 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.P2 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the
Rules. However, by Ext.P6 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 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
WP(C) NO. 40737 OF 2024
2025:KER:56173
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 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
WP(C) NO. 40737 OF 2024
2025:KER:56173
excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P6 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, who in turn has relied on the
recommendations of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre. The authorized officer has not rendered
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 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
WP(C) NO. 40737 OF 2024
2025:KER:56173
prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P6 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd 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 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/-
rkc/29.07.25 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 40737 OF 2024
2025:KER:56173
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40737/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED
19.01.2021 PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER WITH ANNEXURES, SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA TO THE
DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE DATED 27.09.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W P C NO 17505
OF 2023 DATED 31.5.2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W P C NO 13687 OF 2023 DATED
19.3.2024
Exhibit p6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 10.8.2023
