Kerala High Court
Bindhu K.S vs Revenue Divisional ... on 5 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:39641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1517 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BINDHU K.S.,
AGED 51 YEARS
C/O RANJITH , RAKENDU, ALAMCODE VILLAGE,
VANCHIYOOR PO, ALAMCODE,
THIRUVANATHAPPURAM, PIN - 695102
BY ADV SHRI.SADIQALI. M
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
1ST FLOOR, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695043
2 ADDL.R2. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN KARAVARAM ,
KARAVARAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695605
3 ADDL R3. VILLAGE OFICER,
ALAMCODE VILLAGE OFFICE, SH 46,
VANCHIYOOR, ALAMCODE, KERALA 695102
(ADDL.RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 15-01-2025 IN IA 1/2025 IN WPC 1517/2025)
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 1517 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:39641
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order
and direct the first respondent to reconsider Ext. P4
application (Form 5) submitted by the petitioner under
Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land
and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of
12.55 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 145/8 of
Alamcode Village, Attingal, covered by Ext. P2 land tax
receipt. The petitioner's property is a garden land.
However, the respondents have erroneously classified
the property as paddy land and included it in the data
bank. In order to exclude the property from the data
bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext. P4 application
before the first respondent. The first respondent,
without directly inspecting the property or calling for
the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules, by solely relying on the report of the
2025:KER:39641
additional second respondent, has perfunctorily
rejected Ext. P4 application. Ext. P5 order is illegal and
arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The first respondent has filed a statement,
inter alia, stating that the petitioner's property falls
under the category of paddy land as per the village
records and is included in the data bank. As per the
report of the Agricultural Officer, the land was not
converted prior to 2008. Therefore, it cannot be excluded
from the data bank.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, her
property is a garden land. The respondents have
erroneously classified the same as paddy land and
included it in the data bank. The petitioner's Ext. P4
application, to exclude the property from the data bank,
has been perfunctorily rejected by Ext. P5 order.
2025:KER:39641
6. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court
has held that, it is 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)).
7. Ext.P5 order substantiates that the first
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f)
of the Rules. Instead, he has solely relied on the report of
the additional second respondent and rejected the
application. He has also not rendered any independent
2025:KER:39641
finding regarding the nature and character of the
petitioner's property as on the crucial date, i.e.,
12.08.2008, the date of the commencement of the Act, or
whether the removal of the petitioner's property from
the data bank would adversely affect the paddy
cultivation in the locality. Therefore, I am convinced that,
Ext.P5 order is passed without any application of the
mind, and the same is liable to be quashed, and the first
respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider
the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after
adverting to the principles of law laid down in the
aforesaid decisions and the materials available on
record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext. P4 application, in
accordance with law. It would be up to the
2025:KER:39641
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. P4
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. However, if he directly inspects the
property, he shall dispose of Ext. P4 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/05.06.25
2025:KER:39641
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1517/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED SY. NO. 145/8
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
ON 02-07-2024
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS,
EVIDENCING THE TRUE NATURE OF THE
PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION
DATED ON 15-07-2022
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION
REJECTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED ON
13-06-2024.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF THANDAPPER
ACCOUNT NO. 41/20031 IN THE YEAR 2024-
EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MNUTES
