Kerala High Court
Alice Joseph vs The State Of Kerala on 5 June, 2025
W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 1
2025:KER:39627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27381 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
ALICE JOSEPH,
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O JOSEPH, CHITTATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, VALAVOOR, P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686635
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
SHRI.T.N.ARJUN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL
STATION, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, VALLICHIRA, VALLICHIRA P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686574
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, VALAVOOR, VALAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686574
5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 2
2025:KER:39627
KAROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VALAVOOR,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686574
ADDL.R6 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.), COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-
686002 .
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE
WRIT PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED 5.6.2025 IN
I.A.NO.3 OF 2025 IN WP(C)NO.27381 OF 2022.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022 3
2025:KER:39627
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
--------------------
W.P.(C).No.27381 of 2022
--------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved
by Ext.P8 order whereby the Form-5 application
submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. The petitioner is in ownership of an
extent of 33.60 Ares of properties comprised in
Block No.19, Re-survey No.226/1 of Vallichira
Village in Meenachil Taluk. Though the property was
categorised as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register,
but the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation
at present. The coconut trees are planted in the
property as early as in 1990 and the property has
been fully transformed into a 'purayidom' at least
from 2000 onwards. At present there are about 45
coconut trees in the subject land which are more
than 20 years and 30 years old. There are other
trees also standing in the property. The Local Level
2025:KER:39627
Monitoring Committee taking note of the ground
realities recorded the status of the land in the
draft data bank, which is produced as Ext.P2, that
the property has been converted before 6 years and
it is not suitable for paddy cultivation. As the
property has already been converted, permission was
sought by the petitioner under Section 27A of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,
2008 with effect from 30.12.2017. But in Ext.P3
final data bank the property is seen included.
Thereupon, Ext.P4 application was submitted in Form-
5 for removal of the property from the data bank. A
report was called for from the Village Officer and
the Agricultural Officer. It is submitted that the
Agricultural Officer's report is not conclusive. In
the said report, it is only stated that it can be
presumed that the property was converted after 2008,
since in the KSRSEC report in the data of 2008, it
is reported as 'crop land' and from 2011 onwards, it
is reported as plantation. The Village Officer has
2025:KER:39627
also submitted Ext.P7 report, wherein it is reported
that the property is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. Taking into consideration Ext.P4 report
of the Agricultural Officer, the application
submitted by the petitioner has been rejected as per
Ext.P8. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P10, which is
a list of approved persons who are entitled for
subsidy for cutting and removing of coconut trees
wherein petitioner's name is also included, which
would reveal that there are 40 coconut trees in the
said property and petitioner was found to be
eligible for subsidy regarding cutting and removing
of 5 coconut trees. On the basis of the same it is
contended that the property is converted as a
plantation and is not suitable for paddy
cultivation.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been
filed by the 2nd respondent contending that the Local
Level Monitoring Committee after conducting a site
inspection and after verifying the KSRSEC report,
2025:KER:39627
and in the light of the report of the Agricultural
Officer and the LLMC, the Form-5 application
submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
brought to my notice that the report or in the
order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer
there is no finding to the effect that the property
is suitable for paddy cultivation as on the coming
into force of the Act on 12.8.2008 and the
petitioner relies on the judgment of this in
Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer 2023 (2) KLT
386 in support of his contentions. Petitioner also
relies on the judgment in Line Properties Pvt.Ltd.,
v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Ernakulam 2025 KHC
OnLine 1637 and contend that in the draft data bank
prepared itself after verification the nature of
the property has been entered as converted 6 years
before the coming into force of the Act and that it
is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
5. I have considered the rival contentions on
2025:KER:39627
both sides.
6. A perusal of Ext.P8 would reveal that the
Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the
application submitted by the petitioner essentially
based on the report of the Agricultural Officer
which was based on the KSRSEC report, but the
Agricultural Officer has not conclusively stated
that the property has been converted after 2008 and
the report only says it is to be presumed that the
property could have been converted after 2008. It is
not seen that no site inspection was conducted by
the Revenue Divisional Officer.
7. Yet another aspect to be noted is that
while preparing the draft data bank Ext.P2, after
conducting necessary enquiry and inspection the
property was found to be converted 6 years prior to
the coming into force of the Act and also found that
the property is not fit for any paddy cultivation,
and same is in the report of the Village Officer
also. Though consideration of an application under
2025:KER:39627
Form-5 for excluding the paddy land from the data
bank, report of the Village Officer is not very
relevant but there is finding to that effect. I have
already found that the report of the present
Agricultural Officer is not conclusive regarding the
conversion prior to 2008. As settled by this Court
in a catena of decisions while consideration of an
application under Form-5 for removal of the property
from the data bank is the character and fitness of
the land available as on 12.8.2008, that is the date
of coming into force of the Act 2008, which is
relevant for inclusion or exclusion of the land from
the data bank. A perusal of the order does not
reveal such a consideration by the RDO.
Therefore, in view of the above facts and
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter
requires reconsideration at the hands of the Revenue
Divisional Officer/Additional 6th respondent.
Accordingly, Ext.P8 is set aside directing the 2nd
respondent/Additional 6th respondent to re-consider
2025:KER:39627
Ext.P4 application in Form-5. Petitioner will be
free to submit a detailed argument note producing
all the judgment in support of his contentions which
shall also be duly considered in accordance with law
by the officer concerned while taking a decision as
directed above. Fresh decision in this regard shall
be taken within an outer limit of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE
pm
2025:KER:39627
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27381/2022
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
20.05.2022
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DRAFT DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT ON 02.02.2016
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK DATED 17.11.2020 I
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
24.11.2021
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 18.04.2022
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OBTAINED FROM
THE KSRSEC DATED 27.12.2019
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE
OFFICER DATED 04.04.2022
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.05.2022
Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING
THE EXISTENCE OF AGED COCONUT TREES IN
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF BENEFICIARIES
DURING THE YEAR 205-16 PREPARED BY
COCONUT DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI
BHAVAN,KAROOR DATED 24.04.2024
