Kerala High Court
K.P. Mathai vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi on 10 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:50694
WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024
1
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. 24121 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
K.P. MATHAI ,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. PAILY, KALARICKAL, ULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682314
BY ADV SRI.V.S.ANU MON
RESPONDENT:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI,
RDO OFFICE FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
682001
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, MULAMTHURUTHY
KRISHI BHAVAN, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER- 682314
3 VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAMTHURUTHY VILLAGE ,
VILLAGE OFFICE, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682314
4 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
1ST FLOOR, VIKASBHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE
HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50694
WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
7.30 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.396/3-2-2 in
Mulamthuruthy Village, Kanayannoor 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 a Form 5 application under
Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land
and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the
impugned Ext.P2 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He
2025:KER:50694
WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024
has also not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the property as
on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P2 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 and fitness of the land, and whether the land is
suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the
2025:KER:50694
WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024
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.P2 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, who in
2025:KER:50694
WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024
turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local Level
Monitoring Committee, 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.P2 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Form 5 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
2025:KER:50694
WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024
of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider Form 5
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
rmm/10/7/2025
2025:KER:50694
WP(C) NO. 24121 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24121/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
25.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
19.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
