Kerala High Court
Kishore Kumar K vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 1 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:47929
WP(C) NO. 12301 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12301 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
KISHORE KUMAR K.,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, SREENU NIVAS, HALODI,
KARAKKONAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695504.
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
SMT.V.T.LITHA
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
RESPONDENTS:
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695044.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GOVT.PLEADER
2025:KER:47929
WP(C) NO. 12301 OF 2023
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:47929
WP(C) NO. 12301 OF 2023
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
44.55 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.21/9,
23/10, 23/5, 23/9, 23/11, 23/19, 23/20 and 23/21 in Block
No.22 of Neyyattinkara Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk.
The property is a converted land. It is not suitable for
paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and
included it in the data bank. To exclude the property
from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Form-5
application under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in
short). But, by the impugned Ext.P1 order, the
authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Form-5
application, without inspecting the property directly or
2025:KER:47929
WP(C) NO. 12301 OF 2023
calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f)
of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the
property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P1 order is illegal
and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that, his
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously
classified in the data bank as paddy land. Even though
the petitioner had submitted a Form-5 application, to
exclude the property from the data bank, the same has
been rejected by the authorised officer without any
application of mind.
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this
Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie,
2025:KER:47929
WP(C) NO. 12301 OF 2023
character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is
suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the
date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant
criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional
Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read
the decisions of this Court 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 and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P1 order establishes that the authorised
officer has not directly inspected the property or called
for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the
property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of
2025:KER:47929
WP(C) NO. 12301 OF 2023
the property from the data bank would adversely affect
the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely
relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the
impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied
that the impugned order has been passed without any
application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed
and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the
matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to
the principles of law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions and the materials available on
record.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the
following manner:
(i) Ext.P1 order is quashed.
(ii) The respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Form-5 application, in accordance
with law. It would be up to the authorised officer
2025:KER:47929
WP(C) NO. 12301 OF 2023
to either directly inspect the property or call for
satellite images, as per the procedure provided
under Rule 4(4f), at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite
images, he shall consider Form-5 application, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within three months from
the date of the receipt of the satellite images. In
case he directly inspects the property, he shall
dispose of the application within two months
from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:47929
WP(C) NO. 12301 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12301/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
RDOTVM/2875/2022/D.DIS DATED 18.11.2022
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PRINTOUTS OF ONLINE
SATELLITE IMAGES PERTAINING TO
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY ( 6 NOS)
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 07.02.2023
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT FOR REVIEWING EXHIBIT P1 ORDER
