Kerala High Court
Thomas Kurian vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 11 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:40872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
THOMAS KURIAN,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. KURIAN THOMAS, PARAPPALLIL HOUSE, VELLOOR
P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686501
BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
SMT.NEENA ELISABATH ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, MARADU, PIN - 682040
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
MARADU MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS CONVENOR, THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MARADU, PIN -
682040
BY SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 34802 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:40872
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order
and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P3
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 and his wife are the co-owners
in possession of 12.17 Ares of land comprised in Re-
Survey Nos.420/1-8 and 421/5-4-2 in Block No.13 of
Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk covered by Ext.P1
sale deed. Even though the petitioner's property is a
converted land, the same has been erroneously classified
as wetland in the data bank. In order to exclude the
property from the data bank, the petitioner had
submitted Ext.P3 application before the 1st respondent.
The 2nd respondent called for Ext.P4 Kerala State Remote
Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) report.
Nevertheless, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, the 2nd
2025:KER:40872
respondent has rejected Ext.P3 application without any
application of mind. The 2nd respondent has not directly
inspected the property or rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and the character of the
petitioner's property. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement,
inter alia, stating that, since the petitioner's property is
classified as wetland and included in the data bank,
Ext.P3 application was forwarded to the Village Officer
for report on 06.06.2023. As per the Village Officer's
report, the applied land is classified as wetland in the
revenue records. On the basis of the Village Officer's
report, Ext.P3 application was forwarded to the
Agricultural Officer, who has submitted a report stating
that the property was not converted prior to 2008.
Therefore, the property cannot be excluded from the data
bank. Hence, there is no illegality in Ext.P6 order.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
2025:KER:40872
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, his
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. The respondents have erroneously classified
the same as wetland and included it in the data bank.
Even though the 2nd respondent had called for Ext.P4
KSREC report, which undoubtedly substantiate that the
petitioner's property is bordered by a road and is under
vegetation cover since 2002, the 2nd respondent rejected
the same.
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
2025:KER:40872
386) and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional
Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021
(1) KLT 433)).
7. In Mather Nagar Residents Association and
Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others
[2020 (2) KLT 192], a Division Bench of this Court has
succinctly held that merely because the property is lying
fallow and gets water logged during rainy season or
otherwise due to its low -lying nature, the said property
cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land as
contemplated under the Act, 2008.
8. Ext.P6 order reveals that the 2nd respondent has
not directly inspected the property. He has solely relied
on the report of the Village Officer and the Agricultural
Officer to come to a conclusion that the petitioner's
property cannot be excluded from the data bank. Ext.P4
report specifically shows that the petitioner's property is
bordered by a road on the north and is under vegetation
cover in the 2002 data. But, the 2nd respondent has
2025:KER:40872
not rendered any independent finding regarding the
nature and character of the petitioner's property as on
the crucial data i.e., 12.08.2008, or whether the exclusion
of the petitioner's property from the data bank would
adversely affect the paddy cultivation. Thus, I am
satisfied and convinced that there has been total non-
application of mind in passing Ext.P6 order and the 2nd
respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider
Ext.P3 application, 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.P6 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within two months from the
date of production of a copy of this judgment after
2025:KER:40872
specifically adverting to the principles laid down in
the aforesaid decisions and Ext.P4 KSREC report.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:40872
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34802/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED AND
REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.2972/2010 DATED
25/11/2010 OF SRO, MARADU
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.A3-
8780/10 DATED 17/09/2010 ISSUED FROM THE
MARADU MUNICIPALITY
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.5 APPLICATION
DATED 26/05/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
03/01/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE KSREC BEFORE
THE 3RD RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF
THE PETITIONER'S 12.17 ARES (30.05 CENTS)
OF LAND (5.38 ARES OF LAND IN RE-SURVEY
NO.420/1-8 & 6.79 ARES OF LAND IN RE-
SURVEY NO.421/5-4-2) IN BLOCK NO.13 OF
MARADU VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/09/2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
