Kerala High Court
Pathumakutty vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur on 7 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 44929 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:49562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44929 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
PATHUMAKUTTY,
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O. KUNHI MOIDEEN KUTTY, UZHINHALATH, MOONAKKAL,
NEAR MOONAKKAL JUMASJID, EDAYOOR PO VALANCHERI,
MALAPURAM, DISTRICT, KERALA, INDIA, PIN - 676552
BY ADVS. SHRI.AJMAL P.
SMT.AKSHAYA S.NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR
TIRUR OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR-THRIKANDIYOOR RD, TIRUR, KERALA, PIN - 67610
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
FOR THE EDAYUR VILLAGE, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676102
3 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE [KSREC]
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
BY SRI.K.M.FAIZAL, GP
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44929 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:49562
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8 Ares
and 90 sqm of land comprised in Survey Nos.385/4-10 and
385/4-11 in Block No.2 in Edayur Village, Tirur Taluk,
covered under Ext.P1 possession certificate. 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.P4 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.P5 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4 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 independent finding regarding
2025:KER:49562
the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008.
Hence, Ext. P5 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 Officer to
exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions
2025:KER:49562
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.P5 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 is liable to be quashed and the authorised officer be
directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance
2025:KER:49562
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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 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.P4 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:49562
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:49562
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44929/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DT.23.01.2024
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DRAFT DATA BANK
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.23.02.2024
NUMBERED AS 18/2024/28165, SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
U/S 5 (4) (I) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION
OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.27.10.2024,
REJECTING EXT.P4 APPLICATION BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
