Kerala High Court
Seetha K vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 9 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:40132
WP(C) NO. 4455 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4455 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SEETHA K.,
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O MANIKANDAN L, MOOTHEDATHU (H),
VENNAKKARA,NURANI P. O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.HARISHANKAR
SMT.AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KANNADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER - AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN
KANNADI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678701
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KANNADI,PALAKKAD, PIN - 678701
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANNADI - I VILLAGE OFFICE,KANNADI - I, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
2025:KER:40132
WP(C) NO. 4455 OF 2025
2
SR. GP. SMT. PREETHA K.K.
SC SRI.P.R.VENKATESH
GP SMT SYLAJA S L
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:40132
WP(C) NO. 4455 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order
and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P4
application (Form 5) submitted 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
Ares 50 Sq. meters of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.
647/23 and 666/40 in Block No.51 in Kannadi-I Village,
Palakkad, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed and Ext.P2 land
tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a converted
land. However, the respondents have erroneously
classified the same as 'paddy land' and included it in the
data bank. In order to exclude the property from the
data bank, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4
application before the 1st respondent. But, by the
impugned Ext.P5 order, the 1st respondent has
2025:KER:40132
WP(C) NO. 4455 OF 2025
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4 application, without any
application of mind, inspecting the property or calling
for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules. Hence, Ext. P5 order is illegal and arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, her
property is a converted land. The respondents have
erroneously classified the property as a paddy land. Even
though the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 application
before the 1st respondent, the same has been rejected by
the 1st respondent without directly inspecting the property
or calling for the satellite images.
5. 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
2025:KER:40132
WP(C) NO. 4455 OF 2025
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)).
6. Ext.P5 order substantiates that the first
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. The first respondent has also not
rendered any independent finding regarding the nature,
character or lie of the petitioner's property as on the
crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of
the petitioner's property from the data bank would
adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality, if
any. Therefore, I am convinced and satisfied that Ext.P5
2025:KER:40132
WP(C) NO. 4455 OF 2025
order has been passed without any application of 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
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,
2025:KER:40132
WP(C) NO. 4455 OF 2025
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
rmm/9/6/2025
2025:KER:40132
WP(C) NO. 4455 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4455/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1255/2023OF
KUZHALMANNAMSRO DATED 18.05.2023
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
10.06.2024 ISSUED BY KANNADI - I VILLAGE
OFFICE
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 08.01.2024 ISSUED BY KANNADI - I
VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 DATED
26.06.2023 AS PER KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY AND WETLAND RULES, 2008 BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
14.10.2024ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
EXHIBIT-P4 APPLICATION
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ABOVE
SAID LAND OWNED BY THE PETITIONERIS
