Kerala High Court
K.P.Dennis , S/O Philip vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 7 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 31740 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:49751
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. 31740 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
K.P.DENNIS , S/O PHILIP,
AGED 64 YEARS
KURISSINGAL HOUSE, PUTHENVETTUVAZHI, THUMBOOR
P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680662
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P.
SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI
SHRI.RAKESH S MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKKUDA, MINI CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKKUDA, PIN -
680125
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
VELUKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER &
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VELUKKARA KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680683
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VELUKKARA, VELUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680683
GP.SMT.DEEPA V
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. 31740 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:49751
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 31740 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.02
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.886/4-8 and 6.47
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.886/6-1 of Kottanellur
Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District, covered
under Ext.P3 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.P6 application in 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.P7 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P6 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
2025:KER:49751
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.P7 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
2025:KER:49751
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.P7 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, which was based on the
recommendations of the Local Level Monitoring Committee
(LLMC), the impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am
satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without
2025:KER:49751
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.P7 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P6 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.P6 application, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within three months from the date of the
2025:KER:49751
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
SCB.07.07.25.
2025:KER:49751
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31740/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1745/2006
DATED 12.07.2006 OF SRO, VADAKKUMKARA
Exhibit P- 2 TRUE COPY OF THE CORRECTION DEED NO.
3344/2006 DATED 29.11.2006 OF SRO,
VADAKKUMKARA
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT
NO.KL08035002062/2024 DATED 15.05.2024
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFIED DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF
KOTTANELLUR VILLAGE DATED 22.10.2020
Exhibit P- 5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND
Exhibit P- 6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5
DATED 13.10.2023
Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 3588/2024 DATED
12.05.2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
