Kerala High Court
Bhargavi vs State Of Kerala on 29 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 43752 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:56165
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. 43752 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
BHARGAVI,
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O GOVIDANKUTTY,KOZHUKULLY P.O., THRISSUR, PIN -
680751
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH (THRISSUR)
SMT.K.VINAYA
SMT.ADONIYA GIGI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR , CIVIL STATION ,AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR, PIN -
680003
3 THE TAHSILDAR ( LR),
TALUK OFFICE THRISSUR ,THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOZHUKULLY VILLAGE,KUZHUKULLY P. O., THRISSUR, PIN -
680751
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,NADATHARA,KUZHUKULLY P.O., THRISSUR, PIN
- 680751
WP(C) NO. 43752 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:56165
6 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN -
680003
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.DEEPA V
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. 43752 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:56165
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 43752 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 1.4 Ares of
land comprised in Survey No.24/28-5 of Kozhukully Village,
Thrissur Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 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.P5 application
in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P7
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application by solely relying on the report of the Agricultural
Officer. 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
WP(C) NO. 43752 OF 2024
2025:KER:56165
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 excluded from the data bank.
WP(C) NO. 43752 OF 2024
2025:KER:56165
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 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.
WP(C) NO. 43752 OF 2024
2025:KER:56165
(ii) The 6th 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. 43752 OF 2024
2025:KER:56165
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43752/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DOCUMENT
NO. DOCUMENT NO.1179/I/2022 DATED 16.5.2022
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
30.9.2024
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
3.10.2023 ISSUED TO SUMESH
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LAY
AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN
FORM NO.5 DATED 25.10.2022 SUBMITTED BY
BHARGAVI
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, NADATHARA DATED
20.12.2022
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.9.2024
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26.6.2023
SUBMITTED TO THE RDO THRISSUR
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB
COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DATED 3.10.2023
