Kerala High Court
Yousuf Kunju vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub ... on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:50385
WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024
1
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. 45320 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
YOUSUF KUNJU,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O KOYA KUNJU , S/O MUHAMMED HANEEFA, SHIFA MAHAL,
AYATHIL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691021.
BY ADV SRI.JOMY K. JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE RDO , CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN -
691013.
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURE OFFICE, ALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691578.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691578.
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691013.
5 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691001.
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, GOVT.PLEADER
2025:KER:50385
WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50385
WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 45320 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 25.55
Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.183/17, 183/18,
183/19 and 183/20 in Kalluvathukkal Village, Kollam
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.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.P6 order, the authorised officer
has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4 application, without
2025:KER:50385
WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024
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.P6 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
2025:KER:50385
WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024
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 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
2025:KER:50385
WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024
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.P6 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to 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
2025:KER:50385
WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024
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
dkr
2025:KER:50385
WP(C) NO. 45320 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45320/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 958/2016
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 13-
07-2021 VIDE NO. KL02032105154/2021
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED IN
THE GAZETTE DATED 22-04-2016
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN
FORM 5 DATED 25-02-2022
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-08-2024
