Kerala High Court
Krishnaprasanth vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad on 13 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
0
2025:KER:41959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 17770 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
KRISHNAPRASANTH,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O MUTHUKRISHNAN, KARUMANKAD,
KOTTEKKAD P O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678732
BY ADV SMT.M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PALAKKAD 2 VILLAGE OFFICE,
PALAKKAD P O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY,
PALAKKAD P O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
4 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V.,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
0
WP(C) NO. 17770 of 2025 2
2025:KER:41959
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order
and direct the first respondent to re-consider Ext. P3
(Form 5) application 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
2 Ares and 91 sq. meters of land comprised in Re-
Survey No. 3067/45 in Block No. 176 of Palakkad-2
Village, Palakkad District, covered by Ext. P1 land tax
receipt. Even though the petitioner's property is a
converted land, 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 had submitted Ext. P3
application before the first respondent. But, the first
respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext. P3
2025:KER:41959
application by the impugned Ext. P4 order, without
any application of mind. 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, his
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext. P3
application to exclude the property from the data bank,
the first respondent, without directly inspecting the
property or calling for the satellite images as envisaged
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, has rejected the said
application.
5. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, this
Court has held that, it is the 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
2025:KER:41959
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. P4 order establishes that the first respondent
has not directly inspected the property or called for
satellite images as envisaged under the rule. 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
adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality.
Therefore, I hold that there has been total non-
application of the mind in passing Ext.P3 order. Hence, I
2025:KER:41959
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 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
2025:KER:41959
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/13.06.25
2025:KER:41959
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17770/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.
KL 09052305126/2023 DATED 25/05/2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT
NO. 2023/120635/09 IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 15/09/2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
NO. 139/2023/12426 DATED 16.09.2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
WITH FILE NO. 5011/2024 DATED 07/01/2025
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
