Kerala High Court
Babeesh Thottungal vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 22577 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:49908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 22577 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
BABEESH THOTTUNGAL,
AGED 41 YEARS
THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, PURAMATHILASSERY, AANAKKARA,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679551
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.SUJAI SATHIAN
SMT.PREETHI. P.V.
SMT.MARY LIYA SABU
SMT.AISWARYA S. ASHOKAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679101
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
AANAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, KUMBIDI, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 679553
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
OTTAPPALAM KRISHI BHAVAN,
OTTAPPALAM MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679102
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 22577 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:49908
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.89/1-1-3 in
Anakkara Village, Pattambi Taluk, covered under
Ext.P2 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.P5 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.P6 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P5 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:49908
the nature and character of the property as on
12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P6 order is illegal and arbitrary,
and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Senior 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 ascertained by the Revenue Divisional
2025:KER:49908
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.P6 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
2025:KER:49908
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.P6 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P5 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.P5
application, in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
2025:KER:49908
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
NAB
2025:KER:49908
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22577/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED
NO.324/1/2023 OF SRO KUMARANALLOR
EXECUTED ON 28-02-2023
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECEIPTS
DATED 25-04-2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 25-04-2023
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM APPLICATION
NO.19/2023/1071809 DATED 27-04-2023
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2823/2023
DATED 02-01-2024 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
