Kerala High Court
Jayashree N vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 10281 OF 2023
1
2025:KER:50441
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. 10281 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
JAYASHREE N,
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O GIRISH KUMAR N, CHENDAMKOD, KANIMANGALAM, NENMARA
P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678508
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SHRI.SAJU ABRAHAM.T
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA,
PIN - 678001
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NENMARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678508
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
NENMARA, NENMARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678508
GP SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 10281 OF 2023
2
2025:KER:50441
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.10281 OF 2023
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.24 Ares
of land, comprised in Survey No.95/3-2 in Block No.55 in
Nenmara Village, Chittur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 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.P9 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected
Ext.P5 application, without inspecting the property directly. He
has passed the order relying on the report of the Agricultural
Officer and the satellite pictures in Ext.P7 report as envisaged
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character of the
WP(C) NO. 10281 OF 2023
2025:KER:50441
property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P9 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.P5
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)
WP(C) NO. 10281 OF 2023
2025:KER:50441
and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P9 order establishes that the authorised officer has
not directly inspected the property. He had called for Ext.P7
report as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. A reading of
Ext.P7 report shows that there was no satellite data for the
year 2008.
6. The crucial factor to decide a Form 5 application is the
nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. When
the 1st respondent found that there is no satellite data for the
year 2008, then it was his bounden duty to have directly
inspected the property and ascertained its nature and
character as on 12.08.2008 and whether removal of the
property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy
cultivation. Instead, by relying on the report of the Agricultural
Officer's report and the inconclusive Ext.P7 report, the 1 st
respondent has passed Ext.P9 impugned order. 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
WP(C) NO. 10281 OF 2023
2025:KER:50441
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.P9 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P5 application by directly inspecting
the property and ascertaining the nature and
character of the property as on 12.08.2008 and decide
the application, in accordance with law, and as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
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. 10281 OF 2023
2025:KER:50441
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10281/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 22-
11-2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH/MAP PREPARED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES NOTIFIED DATA
BANK PUBLISHED ON 12-3-2012
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER SUBMITTED AN
APPLICATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATE
NIL
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED A LETTER
DATED 2-7-2021
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE (KSRSEC) FORWARDED THE
REPORT REGARDING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE LETTER DATED 6-8-2022
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT FORWARDED THE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING ALONG WITH LETTER NO:
NMA 66/2022-2023 DATED 12-9-2022
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 17-9-2022
