Kerala High Court
Ranadev C.R vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 10 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:50719
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 RANADEV C.R.,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O C.K. RAVEENDRAN, ‘CHEMPARATHI', MANNUR
P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678642
2 DIVYA RANADEV,
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O RANADEV C.R., ‘CHEMPARATHI', MANNUR P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678642
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P.
SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI
SHRI.RAKESH S MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND CONVENER,
VILVATTOM KRISHI BHAVAN, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680631
WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:50719
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VILVATTOM KRISHI BHAVAN, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680631
5 DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING & ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 36077 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:50719
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession of
3.64 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.Y12-07/66-1 in
Peringavu Village, Thrissur 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 petitioners 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 2nd respondent 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,
2025:KER:50719
Ext.P5 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be
quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' specific case is that, their
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
Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the
2025:KER:50719
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.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
2025:KER:50719
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 2nd 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
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
2025:KER:50719
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:50719
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36077/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P- 1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 4480/2014
DATED 01.10.2014 OF THRISSUR SUB REGISTRY
EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.
KL08016103482/2024 DATED 10.10.2024
EXHIBIT P- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
NOTIFIED DATA BANK DATED 22.01.2021
EXHIBIT P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5
DATED 29.06.2023
EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1040/2024
DATED 22.09.2024 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE IMAGE SHOWING THE
PRESENT STATUS OF THE LAND
EXHIBIT P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
GROUND REALITY OF THE PETITIONERS' LAND
