Kerala High Court
Asha Jayaprakash vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 30 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:56436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ASHA JAYAPRAKASH ,
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O, JAYAPRAKASHM KARTHIKA, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD
MATHOOR EROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306
2 NAUFAL,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O FAKRUDHIN, ANGAMPARAMBIL(H) 2/2 GCDA,
KUNJATTUKARA EDATHALA P.O.ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561
BY ADV SMT.M.S.SHAMLA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ALUVA EAST VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683563
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURE OFFICE, PUKKATTUPADI,ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683561
BY SMT.JESSY S SALIM, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:56436
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2025
The petitioners are the owners in possession of 5
Ares and 35 Sq.Metres of land comprised in Re-Survey
Nos.154/14-3 and 5 Ares and 35 Sq.Metres of land
comprised in Re-Survey No.154/13 in Aluva East Village,
Aluva Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 sale deed and 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 a Form
5 application, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P5 order, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without directly inspecting the
2025:KER:56436
property. Even though the authorised officer had called
for Ext.P4 report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing
and Environmental Centre (KSREC), wherein it has been
specifically observed that the property is a fallow land
with mixed vegetation/plantations/trees towards the east
side in the data of 2008, the authorised officer has held
that there is no material to substantiate that the property
was converted before 2008. Ext.P5 order is devoid of
any independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the property as it existed on 12.08.2008 - the
date the Act came into force. Therefore, the impugned
order is arbitrary and is liable to be quashed.
2. In the statement filed by the 3 rd respondent
it is contended that, the members of the Local Level
Monitoring Committee (LLMC) had inspected the property
on 30.09.2022. They found that the property is lying fallow
as a single plot covered with grass. Therefore, the said
members had recommended to call for the satellite
pictures and consequently Ext.P4 report was called for. In
2025:KER:56436
Ext.P4 report, it is seen that the plot is covered with mixed
vegetation/plantations/trees in the data of 2008. The
LLMC conducted a study of Ext.P4 report and decided to
recommend the authorised officer to retain the property in
the data bank. Accordingly, the impugned order was
passed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioners' 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.
5. 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
2025:KER:56436
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.
6. 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 not directly inspected the property.
Instead, based on the recommendation of the LLMC, who
perused Ext.P4 KSREC report and recommended that the
property need not be excluded from the data bank, the
impugned order was passed. Thus it is certain that the
authorised officer has not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the property
as on the relevant date. It was upto the authorised officer
to have either directly inspected the property or
considered the observations/conclusions in Ext.P4 report.
2025:KER:56436
Therefore, I am convinced that the impugned order is
vitiated due to the 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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with the
law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 90
days from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment. It would be upto the authorised officer to either
directly inspect the property or rely on Ext.P4 KSREC
report.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:56436
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29498/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 5359/2008
DATED 19.11.2008 OF ALUVA SRO
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE
YEAR 2021-2022 DATED 02/09/2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOR OF THE
PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT ISSUED BY
THE DIRECTOR, KSREC
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING FILE NO.K12-
1960 DATED 10/03/2024
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PROPERTY
