Kerala High Court
Prashobha vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 11 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:51418
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PRASHOBHA
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. GANESH, ‘LAKSHMI NILAYAM', VIYYUR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P.
SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI
SHRI.RAKESH S MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
IRINJALAKUDA , 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION RD,
IRINJALAKUDA, KERALA, PIN - 680125
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
IRINJALAKKUDA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKKUDA
KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 682308
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
IRINJALAKKUDA KRISHI BHAVAN, IRINJALAKKUDA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680121
4 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE SATELLITE REMOTE SENSING &
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, ‘C' BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033
2025:KER:51418
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
2
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, SC-SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:51418
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
0.0259 hectares of land comprised in Survey No. 15/2-
3 in Irinjalakuda Village, Mukundapuram 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
ExtP5 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 1st respondent has perfunctorily
rejected Ext.P5 application, without inspecting the
property directly or calling for satellite images as
2025:KER:51418
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
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 and fitness of the land, and whether the land
is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e.,
2025:KER:51418
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:51418
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
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.P5 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.P5
2025:KER:51418
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
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/11/7/2025
2025:KER:51418
WP(C) NO. 3912 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3912/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1597/2010
DATED 22.07.2010 OF SRO, IRINJALAKKUDA
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT
NO.KL08035301182/2023 DATED 01.04.2023
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFIED DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF
IRINJALAKKUDA VILLAGE IN THE LIMIT OF
IRINJALAKKUDA MUNICIPALITY DATED
19.01.2021
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5
DATED 11.03.2024 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 288/2025 DATED
17.01.2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
