Kerala High Court
Johnson John vs State Of Kerala on 4 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 6210 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:49222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6210 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JOHNSON JOHN,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O JOHN, 'PAMPELIMANNIL', ANGADIKKAL, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 695521
BY ADV SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICE 2ND FLOOR COLLECTORATE ROAD,
CHITTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 68964
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
5P5J+6R9 MG ROAD, PARASSLA, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 691523
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
7Q7Q+W59 GROUND FLOOR MINI CIVIL STATION,
KOZHENCHERRY SH7, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
5 THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER,
ASRAMOM, SECRETARIAT EAST, RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
ROAD, STATUE PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
WP(C) NO. 6210 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:49222
6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KALANJOOR VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689694
7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOODAL VILLAGE 4VP4+JR3 RAJAGIRI ESTATE ROAD, KOODAL,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689693
GP.SMT.JESSY S.SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6210 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:49222
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 6210 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.20
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.218/20 in Block
No.29 in Koodal Village, Pathanamthitta District, 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.P3 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.P4 order, the
authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P3
application, without inspecting the property directly or
calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of
WP(C) NO. 6210 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:49222
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.P4 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, 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
WP(C) NO. 6210 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:49222
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.P4 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 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
WP(C) NO. 6210 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:49222
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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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.P3 application, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within three months from the date of the
WP(C) NO. 6210 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:49222
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/-
SCB.04.07.25. C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 6210 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:49222
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6210/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED
04.10.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LAND
DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER KALANJOOR PATHANAMTHITTA
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3 RD
RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED
01.07.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3 RD
RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
NO.701/2023 DATED 02.06.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER DATED 21.01.2025
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 22.02.2021 IN WP(C) 24568/2021
