Kerala High Court
Babu K.C vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur on 3 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 19605 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:38640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19605 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BABU K.C,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.CHAKKAPPAN, KOOTTALA HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE
AND POST, PUTHURKKARA DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 680003
BY ADVS. SHRI.SHIBIN K.F.
SHRI.SEBY JOSEPH
SHRI.RAHUL SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE,
PUTHURKKARA, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680012
3 VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE,
CIVIL LANE ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19605 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:38640
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 03rd day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order and
direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P1 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 9
cents of land comprised in Block No.45, Re-Survey
Nos.736/PT3 and 736/PT4 in Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur
Taluk, covered by Ext.P4 land tax receipt. The petitioner's
property is a converted land. However, the respondents
have erroneously classified the property as 'Nilam' and
included it in the data bank. In order to exclude the
property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted
Ext.P1 application before the 1st respondent. But, the 1st
respondent, by the impugned Ext.P2 order, has rejected
Ext.P1 by solely relying on the report of the 2 nd
2025:KER:38640
respondent/Agricultural Officer. It is without any
application of mind that the 1st respondent has passed
Ext.P2 order. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 1st respondent has filed a statement, inter alia,
stating that the 2nd respondent has found that the
petitioner's property was not converted prior to 2008. It is
a water-logged and low lying property. The neigbouring
lands are fallow. In addition to the same, if the petitioner's
property is converted, the nearby properties may also be
converted. Therefore, the Local Level Monitoring
Committee has recommended not to exclude the
petitioner's property 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, his property
is a converted land prior to 2008. The respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'Nilam' and included
it in the data bank. Even though the petitioner had filed
Ext.P1 application to exclude the property from the data
2025:KER:38640
bank, the same has been erroneously rejected based on
the report of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has
not directly inspected the property or called for satellite
images as envisaged under Rules.
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.P2 order proves that the 1st respondent has not
directly inspected the property or called for the satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The 1 st
2025:KER:38640
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, or
whether the removal of the petitioner's property from the
data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation.
By solely relying on the report of the 2 nd respondent, the
1st respondent has passed Ext.P2 order. I find that Ext.P2
order has been passed without any application of mind and
the same is liable to be quashed, and the 1 st respondent is
directed to re-consider the matter, 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 disposed of in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P2 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P1 application, in
accordance with law. It would be up to the
authorised officer to either directly inspect the
2025:KER:38640
property or call for satellite images as per the
procedure provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at
the expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite
images, he shall consider Ext.P1 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 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
NAB
2025:KER:38640
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19605/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.5 APPLICATION,
DATED 07-03-2023, SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2980/2024
DATED 15-02-2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
1413/2000, DATED 06-03-2000 ON THE RECORDS
OF THE AYYANTHOLE SRO
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT, DATED 11-10-
EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOGRAPHS, DATED NIL, SHOWING THE
PRESENT STATUS OF THE LAND
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, DATED
12-11-2020 ISSUED BY THE THRISSUR
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK PUBLISHED ON 22-01-2021 IN THE
KERALA GAZETTE
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA
BANK, DATED NIL, ISSUED FROM THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE.
