Noorjahan vs Revenue Divisional Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 965 Ker

Kerala High Court

Noorjahan vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 14 July, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                            2025:KER:51850
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
        MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
                          WP(C) NO. 32157 OF 2023

PETITIONER:

            NOORJAHAN,
            AGED 53 YEARS
            W/O MOIDEENKUTTY, PADATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
            VELLANGALLUR.P.O,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680622

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
            SMT.P.R.REENA




RESPONDENTS:

    1       REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
            CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125

    2       LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
            AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
            VELLANGALLUR, VELLANGALLUR.P.O,
            THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680662

    3       AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
            KRISHI BHAVAN, VELLANGALLUR,
            VELLANGALLUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680662


OTHER PRESENT:

            SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
14.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.32157   OF 2023     2

                                            2025:KER:51850

                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of July, 2025

The petitioner is the owner in possession of

22.5 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos. 157/1,

157/2, and 164/5 in Vadakkumkara Village,

Mukundapuram Taluk, covered under Ext. P1 sale

deed. Out of the above extent of land, 10 cents of land

is a converted land even prior to the commencement of

the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland

Act, 2008. Nonetheless, the entire property is shown as

'paddy land' in the data bank. Consequently, the

petitioner had submitted Ext. P7 application in Form 5

under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short), before

the first respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner also

filed Ext. P10 application in Form 5 of the Rules before

the first respondent. But, by the impugned Ext. P15

order, the first respondent has perfunctorily rejected

2025:KER:51850

Ext. P10 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,

Ext. P15 order is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to

be quashed.

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the first

respondent, it is stated that, the Local Level Monitoring

Committee ('LLMC,' for short) was convinced that the

petitioner's property was a paddy land as on the date of

the commencement of the Act. Subsequently, the

Agricultural Officer has also reported that the

petitioner's property shall not be excluded from the data

bank because the propoerty is surrounded by the paddy

fields and is a part of "Kannolichira Padasekharam." If

the property is excluded from the data bank, it would

adversely affect the cultivation in the locality. There is no

illegality in Ext. P15 order.

2025:KER:51850

3. Subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit

by the first respondent, the third respondent has filed a

statement and has produced the report of the Kerala

State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC).

4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

5. 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.

6. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, this

Court has 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

2025:KER:51850

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)).

7. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents

Association and Another v. District Collector,

Ernakulam and others (2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division

Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a

property is lying fallow and gets waterlogged during the

rainy season or otherwise, due to the low-lying nature of

the property, the property cannot be treated as wetland

or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar

view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi

Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda,

(2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the prime consideration

2025:KER:51850

to retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether

paddy cultivation is possible in the land.

8. Ext. P15 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 relying on

the observations made by the LLMC and the report

prepared by his Office, the impugned order has been

passed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the

third respondent has produced the report of the KSREC,

which seems to have been prepared at the time of the

preparation of the data bank. Under Rule 4(4f) of the

Rules, the authorised officer is obliged to either directly

inspect the property or call for the satellite images after

the receipt of the Form 5 application. Thus, I am of the

2025:KER:51850

definite view that the KSREC report produced along with

the statement of the third respondent cannot be

accepted on record. Therefore, I am satisfied that the

impugned order passed by the first respondent is 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. P15 order is quashed.

(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is

directed to reconsider Ext.P10 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

2025:KER:51850

expense of the petitioner.

(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the

satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P10

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 mtk/14.07.25

2025:KER:51850

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32157/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1662/08 DATED 11.04.2008 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 10.12.2014 EXHIBIT P 4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE DATED 05.12.2016 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE KRISHI BHAVAN VELLANGALLUR EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.03.2021 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.06.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE EXHIBIT P 10 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.08.2021 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 17.08.2021 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CONVENER OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 29.09.2021 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.17367/2022 DATED 02.08.2022 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.12.2022 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN KHC 540 (JOY.K.K. V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR) EXHIBIT P 17 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2023 (4) KHC 524 (MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.R V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER)