Kerala High Court
George Mammen vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 29 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 10826 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:56190
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. 10826 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
GEORGE MAMMEN,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O LATE K.V. MAMMEN , NO. 507 , 8 TH BLOCK , 1 ST CROSS
ROAD , KORAMANGALA , BANGALORE , KARNATAKA STATE, INDIA,
NOW RESIDING AT 3403, WENTWORTH WAY, HIGHLAND VILLAGE ,
TX 75077, TEXAS, U.S.A, ( HOLDER OF OCIC NO. A317 5311 )
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.S.
VENUGOPALAN , AGED 60 YEARS, S/O K.G.S. SHENOY,
KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PRA - 140 , MUNDASSERY LANE , ERNAKULAM
COLLEGE P.O, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA
STATE, INDIA, PIN - 682035
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.SOYUZ
SRI.E.V.BABYCHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
SUB COLLECTOR, RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R)
ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
3 AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN MINI CIVIL STATION, THRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682301
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NADAMAVILLAGE, KANAYANOORTALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
682301
WP(C) NO. 10826 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:56190
5 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
(KSREC),C BLOCK , VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, SC- 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. 10826 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:56190
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 10826 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9.58 Ares of
land comprised in Re-Survey No.9/12 in Block No.28 in Nadama
Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 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.P4 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P5 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected the application without any application of
mind. By Ext.P7 order, the property of one of the neighbours of
the petitioner has been excluded from the data bank. The
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of a similar order.
WP(C) NO. 10826 OF 2025
2025:KER:56190
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 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
WP(C) NO. 10826 OF 2025
2025:KER:56190
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.P5 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 Local Level Monitoring Committee. The
authorised 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
WP(C) NO. 10826 OF 2025
2025:KER:56190
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.P5 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/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/29.07.25
WP(C) NO. 10826 OF 2025
2025:KER:56190
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10826/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
11.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT
VILLAGE OFFICER
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DRAFT DATA
BANK
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF THRIPUNITHURA
MUNICIPALITY DATED 10.02.2021
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
24.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1404/2023 DATED
27.04.2023 THE 1 ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2
ND RESPONDENT TO MR. T JAMES & ANNIE JAMES
DATED 22.09.2018
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER RDOCHN/14023/2022 -
K11 DATED 18.11.2024 PASSED BY THE 2 ND
RESPONDENT
