Kerala High Court
Binish N.R vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:50497
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
BINISH N.R,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT NIRAYANKUNNATH HOUSE,
MULLURKARA PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680583
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL
SMT.AMALENDU A.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL
STATION, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 TAHSILDAR (LR),
THALAPPILLI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
MULLURKARA, PIN - 680583
3 AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, MULLURKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680583
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:50497
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.23958 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.86 Ares
of land, comprised in Survey No.550/1-3 in Block No.35 in
Mullurkkara Village, Thalappilli Taluk, Thrissur District
covered under Ext.P1 sale deed. 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.P4 order, the authorised
officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2 application, without
inspecting the property directly and without adverting to
Ext.P3 report submitted by the Kerala State Remote Sensing
and Environment Centre (KSREC). He has also not rendered
any independent finding regarding the nature and character of
WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024
2025:KER:50497
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 Ext.P2
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 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
WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024
2025:KER:50497
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. Even though the 3 rd
respondent had called for Ext.P3 report and submitted the
same before the 1st respondent, he has not considered to the
said report in Ext.P4 order. 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 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
WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024
2025:KER:50497
manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with
law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate
within a period of 60 days from the date of production
of a copy of this judgment, after referring to Ext.P3
KSREC report or directly inspecting the property.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/09.07.25
WP(C) NO. 23958 OF 2024
2025:KER:50497
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23958/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1291/2022 OF
THE SRO CHELAKKARA
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER
FORM 5 DATED 17.08.2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
28.02.2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LST
RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.2023
