Raveendran vs Sub Collector/ Revenue Divisional ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1274 Ker

Kerala High Court

Raveendran vs Sub Collector/ Revenue Divisional ... on 5 June, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

WP(C) NO. 44218 OF 2024
                                1


                                                     2025:KER:39673

           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. 44218 OF 2024

PETITIONER/S:

          RAVEENDRAN,
          AGED 56 YEARS
          S/O.NANDAGOPAL CHETTIYAR, VELLARAMPARA HOUSE,
          KOONATHARA POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
          PIN - 679523


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.R.SREEHARI
          SHRI.HAMZA A.V.
          SMT.APARNA M.P.




RESPONDENT/S:

    1     SUB COLLECTOR/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          OTTAPALAM, OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE
          DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679523

    2     LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
          CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
          LAND AND WET LAND ACT,2008), VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA
          PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR -AGRICULTURAL
          OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN - VANIYAMKULAM, VANIYAMKULAM
          POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
          679522

    3     AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
          KRISHI BHAVAN - VANIYAMKULAM, VANIYAMKULAM POST,
          OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522

    4     VILLAGE OFFICER,
          VANIYAMKULAM 1 VILLAGE, VANIYAMKULAM 1 VILLAGE
 WP(C) NO. 44218 OF 2024
                               2


                                                 2025:KER:39673

          OFFICE , VANIYAMKULAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522

          SR.GP SMT.PREETHA K.K.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 44218 OF 2024
                                      3


                                                              2025:KER:39673

                             C.S.DIAS, J.
                 ---------------------------------------
                   WP(C) No. 44218 of 2024
                -----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 5th day of June, 2025

                                JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order and

direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the Form 5

application 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 4.25

Ares of land comprised in Survey No.80/3-3 of

Vaniyamkulam 1 Village, Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad

District covered by Ext.P1 possession certificate. The

petitioner has constructed a residential building as

evidenced by Ext.P2 property tax receipt. The petitioner's

property is a garden land. However, the respondents have

erroneously classified the same as 'nanja (wetland)' and

included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from

the data bank, the petitioner submitted a Form 5

application before the 1st respondent. But, the 1st WP(C) NO. 44218 OF 2024

2025:KER:39673

respondent, by solely relying on the report of the Village

Officer/4th respondent, has perfunctorily rejected the Form

5 application without any application of mind. The 1 st

respondent has not directly inspected the property or

called for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of

the Rules.

3. The 1st respondent has filed a statement, inter-

alia, stating that the Agricultural Officer after conducting a

site inspection reported that the petitioner's property

includes commercial establishment and residential plot.

There is a road on one side and residential buildings on the

other two sides. The rear portion of the petitioner's

property falls within the paddy filed area. It was not

converted prior to 2008. Therefore, the application cannot

be allowed.

4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Government Pleader.

5. It is the petitioner's specific case that his

property is a garden land. It is not suitable for paddy

cultivation. There are buildings and commercial WP(C) NO. 44218 OF 2024

2025:KER:39673

establishments on the sides of the petitioner's property,

which by itself proves that the property is landlocked. The

1st respondent without inspecting the property directly or

called for the satellite images has rejected the application.

6. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, 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. In Niyas v. The District Collector Palakkad

[2023 KHC Online 9342], this Court has succinctly held

that, if a property is land-locked by permanent

constructions, roads and buildings, the same cannot be WP(C) NO. 44218 OF 2024

2025:KER:39673

used for paddy cultivation.

8. The specific case of the respondents in their

statement is that the petitioner's property is wetland.

However, it is the Agricultural Officer, who has filed a

report in the matter. If the property is a wetland going by

Rule 4(4d) of the Rules, the competent authority is the

Village Officer. Moreover, the 1st respondent has not

directly inspected the property or called for the satellite

images. Therefore, I am satisfied and convinced that

Ext.P5 order has been passed without any application of

mind and the same is liable to be quashed, and the 1 st

respondent be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in

accordance with law, after adverting to the principles laid

down in the aforecited decisions and the materials

available on record.

(i). Ext.P5 order is quashed.

(ii). The Village Officer/ 4th respondent is directed to

file a report before the 1st respondent as

contemplated under Rule 4(4e) of the Rules within

one month from the date of production of a copy WP(C) NO. 44218 OF 2024

2025:KER:39673

of this judgment.

(iii) Immediately on receipt of the report from the 4 th

respondent, the 1st respondent shall either directly

inspect the property of the petitioner or call for

the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4d)

of the Rules.

(iv). If the authorised officer calls for the satellite

images, he shall consider the Form 5 application

submitted by the petitioner, 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 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

rkc/05.06.25 WP(C) NO. 44218 OF 2024

2025:KER:39673

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44218/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 28/09/2024 WITH NO.88584353 ISSUED FROM THE VANIYAMKULAM 1 VILLAGE OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22/02/2024 WITH RECEIPT NO.1230107867/G090305, ISSUED FROM THE VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 12/12/2022 WITH NO.7686/(1/12/2022), ISSUED FROM THE VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/05/2022 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FILE NO.RDOOTP/1194/2022 G2 (R.DIS) Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2022 (7) KHC 591 [ARTHASASTHRA VENTURES (INDIA) LLP

-VS- STATE OF KERALA] Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2023 (4) KHC 524 [MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.R -VS- REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER]