Kerala High Court
Soumya vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 11 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442
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. 42084 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SOUMYA,
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O KRISHNAMANI, VADAKKEMATHAM HOUSE, KOLAZHY P.O.,
KOLAZHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
2 SATHEESH,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAMANI, VADAKKEMATHAM HOUSE, KOLAZHY
P.O.,KOLAZHY, 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,
THRISSUR, FIRST FLOOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ( REVENUE RECOVERY),
THRISSUR FIRST FLOOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOLAZHY KRISHI
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442
2
BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KOLAZHY KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
GP.SMT.DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.42084 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the owner in possession of
4.05 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 225/8 in
Kolazhy 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 petitioner had
submitted Ext.P5 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. Although the 4th respondent had called for
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442
Ext.P7 report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre (KSREC), the same was not
considered in the impugned order by the 1 st respondent.
The 1st respondent 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.
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442
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 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. 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
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442
bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the
locality. Instead, by relying on the report of the 4th
respondent, the impugned order has been passed. Even
though the 4th respondent had called for Ext.P7 report,
the same has not been considered in Ext.P6 order. 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 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application, by either
directly inspecting the property or by considering
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442
Ext.P7 report, in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two
months from date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.11.07.25.
WP(C) NO. 42084 OF 2024 2025:KER:51442
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42084/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.589/1/2016 DATED 12.02.2016 OF SUB
REGISTRY OFFICE, THRISSUR
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.
KL08014503417/2023 DATED 11.07.2023
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFIED DATA BANK DATED 14.01.2020 IN
RESPECT OF KOLAZHY VILLAGE
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5
DATED 17.12.2022 PREFERRED TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
20.09.2023
