Kerala High Court
Lingammal vs Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub ... on 10 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:50873
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. 44064 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
LINGAMMAL
AGED 70 YEARS
KOVILPATTI, THUTHUKKUDI,
TAMIL NADU, PIN - 628501
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY
SMT.RICHU HANNA RANJITH
SHRI.DINOOP P.D.
SMT.L.LAKSHMI OMANAKUTTAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ SUB COLLECTOR
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
2 VILLAGE OFFICER
KAZHAKKUTTOM VILLAGE OFFICE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KAZHAKKUTTOM AGRICULTURAL OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
THIS WRITOTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.44064 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:50873
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
04.05 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.99/11-1 in
Block No.11 of Kazhakkoottam Village,
Thiruvananthapuram 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. P3 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. P4 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected Ext. P3 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
2025:KER:50873
regarding the nature and character of the property as
on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P4 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 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
2025:KER:50873
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. P4 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
2025:KER:50873
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. P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext. P3 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. P3
application, in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
2025:KER:50873
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
mtk/10.07.25
2025:KER:50873
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44064/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALEDEED DATED
20/09/2008 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
1/04/2022 ISSUED FROM KAZHAKKUTTOM
VILLAGE OFFICE PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS EXHIBIT P2
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 3/11/2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS EXHIBIT P3
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 9/2022/742769
I 4 (DDIS) DATED 2/09/2024 PRODUCED
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P4
