Kerala High Court
Suneera Ali vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 3 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 44516 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:48712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44516 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUNEERA ALI,
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O ALI CHINNAKKAL, CHINNAKKAL HOUSE, PATTIKKARA
DESOM, CHIRANELLUR PO, THRISSUR DT., PIN - 680501
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
SMT.AGI SHOBY
SHRI.M.A.ANZAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE RDO, AYYANTHOLE PO, COLLECTORATE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)/ AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
MULLOORKARA VILLAGE, MULLOORKARA P O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680583
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE [LLMC]-(WITHIN THE
LOCAL LIMITS OF MULLOORKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH),
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, MULLOORKARA, MULLOORKAA PO,
THRISSUR DT, PIN - 680583
WP(C) NO. 44516 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:48712
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, MULLOORKARA, MULLOORKAA PO,
THRISSUR DT, PIN - 680583
6 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, 'C' BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, GP
SRI.VISHNU S CHMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC, KSREC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44516 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:48712
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 03rd day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.83
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.398/5-1-8 in
Mulloorkara Village, Thalappilly Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 land tax receipt. 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 Ext.P2 application in Form 5 under Rule
4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the
impugned Ext.P3 order, the 2 nd respondent had rejected
Ext.P2 application, without inspecting the property
directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under
Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any
2025:KER:48712
independent finding regarding the nature and character
of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P3 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, her
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,
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
2025:KER:48712
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.P3 order substantiates 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 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
2025:KER:48712
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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in
accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised
officer 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 Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:48712
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
NAB
2025:KER:48712
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44516/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
18-5-2024 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
19-6-2023 FOR THE EXCLUSION OF LAND
COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO. 398/5-1-8 OF
MULLOORKARA VILLAGE IN THALAPPILLY TALUK IN
THRISSUR DISTRICT TO EXCLUDE AN EXTEND OF
2.83 ARES IE 7 CENTS OF LAND FROM THE
FINALIZED DATA BANK
EXHIBIT P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN FILE NO. 5298 /2023 DATED 22-
6-2024
