Kerala High Court
Tamilselvi vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 2 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:38432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7454 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 TAMILSELVI,
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O GUNASEKHARAN,21/649,
VIVEKANANDA COLONY, KUNNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN - 678013
2 SEETHALAKSHMI,
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O RATHEESH,THERAMBIL HOUSE,
PARALIKKAD, WADAKKANCHERY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680623
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
SMT.VIJINA K.
SRI.ARUL MURALIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD,(DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE UNDER THE
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT,
2008), PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KODUMBU OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KODUMBU PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
( LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER THE KERALA
CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008), PIN
- 678551
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KODUMBU VILLAGE,KODUMBU,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678551
WP(C) NO. 7454 of 2025 2
2025:KER:38432
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT KK PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 7454 of 2025 3
2025:KER:38432
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order
and direct the first respondent to re-consider Ext. P3
application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,
2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioners are the owners in possession
of 11.75 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.
511/19, 511/25 and 511/9 of Kodumbu Village, in
Palakkad District, covered by Ext. P1 land tax receipt.
The petitioners' property is a converted land.
However, the respondents have classified the land as
'Nilam' and included it in the data bank. In order to
exclude the property from the data bank, the
petitioners had submitted Ext. P3 application before
the first respondent. But, by the impugned Ext. P4
order, the first respondent, by solely relying on the
2025:KER:38432
report of the second respondent, has perfunctorily
rejected Ext. P3 application. Ext. P4 order is illegal and
arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The first respondent has filed a statement,
inter alia, contending that the Agricultural Officer has
stated that the petitioners' property is a fallow land and
is suitable for paddy cultivation. Therefore, the second
respondent has recommended not to exclude the
petitioners' property from the data bank.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioners' specific case is that, their
property is a garden land. But, respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'Nilam' and
included it in the data bank. Even though the petitioners
had submitted Ext. P3 application, the same has been
rejected on the basis of the report of the second
respondent without directly inspecting the property or
calling for satellite images.
2025:KER:38432
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.P4 order would substantiate that the first
respondent has not rendered any independent 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
2025:KER:38432
adversely affect the paddy cultivation. He has also 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 second
respondent and rejected the application. Therefore, I
hold that there has been total non-application of the
mind in passing Ext.P4 order. Hence, I am satisfied that
Ext.P4 order 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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext. P3 application, in
accordance with law. It would be up to the
2025:KER:38432
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. P3
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. P3 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/02.06.25
2025:KER:38432
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7454/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR
THE PERIOD 2024-2025 DATED 31-1-2025
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS FROM THE 3 RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY ON ALL THE FOUR SIDES OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS COVERED BY
EXHIBIT P1
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 15-10-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE NO.
184/2025 DATED 23-1-2025 ISSUED BY THE 1
ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS
