Kerala High Court
Titty Bijo vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:50478
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. 45256 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
TITTY BIJO,
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O BIJOMON, PUTHENKALAM HOUSE, KUNNAMKARY P.O.,
VELIYANAD VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 686102
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANIL JOSE
SRI.BONNY BENNY
SRI.P.G.SUDHEESH
SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU
SHRI.AMALJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ALAPPUZHA,COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,RDO OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688013
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VELIYANAD VILLAGE,VELIYANAD, KUTTANAD TALUK,ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689590
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN,VELIYANAD, KIDANGARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:50478
PIN - 686102
6 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
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. 45256 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:50478
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.45256 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4 Ares and
85 Sq. Mt. of land, comprised in Survey No.74/1-5-2 in
Veliyanad Village, Kuttanad Taluk, 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.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 the nature and
character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P5
WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024
2025:KER:50478
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 Ext.P4
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
386) and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub
WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024
2025:KER:50478
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 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 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024
2025:KER:50478
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 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
rkc/09.07.25
WP(C) NO. 45256 OF 2024
2025:KER:50478
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45256/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.588/2023
DATED 13/3/2023 OF PULINCUNNU SRO
Exhibit-P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRIOR SALE DEED
NO.820/1993 DATED 30/4/1993 OF PULINCUNNU SRO
Exhibit-P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 9/12/2024
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELIYANAD
Exhibit-P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 31/10/2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/6/2024
PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
