Kerala High Court
Shybu T.K vs State Of Kerala on 16 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 43674 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:42503
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 43674 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHYBU T.K.,
AGED 40 YEARS
THANNIKKODE HOUSE, PANTHALAMPADAM, PANNIYANKARA,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.P.SANTHI
SMT.PARVATHY R NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
CIVIL STATION,COLLECTORATE, PALAKAKAD, PIN - 678541
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR,PALAKKAD, PIN - 678641
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VAKKANCHERY VILLAGE OFFICE , VAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678541
WP(C) NO. 43674 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:42503
SR GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 43674 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:42503
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and
direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P1 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 8.50
Ares of land comprised in Block No.45 in Re.Survey
No.60/17 of Vadakkancherry Village, Alathur Taluk,
Palakkad District, covered by Ext.P6 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
had submitted Ext.P1 application before the 2nd
respondent. But, the 2nd respondent, without directly
inspecting the property or calling for satellite images as
envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules and solely based
2025:KER:42503
on the report of the Agricultural Officer, has perfunctorily
rejected Ext.P1 application by the impugned Ext.P3 order.
Ext.P3 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, his
property is a converted land and is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. Even though he had submitted Ext.P1
application to exclude the property from the data bank, the
2nd respondent has rejected the same, without any
application of mind.
5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, 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 exclude a property
from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court in
Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer
2025:KER:42503
(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.P3 order substantiates that, the 2nd
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite images as envisaged under the
Rules. The 2nd respondent has also not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character of
the petitioner's property as on 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.
Therefore, I am convinced and satisfied that Ext.P3 order
has been passed without any application of mind, and the
same is liable to be quashed and the 2nd
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
2025:KER:42503
following manner:
(i). Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd 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 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.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
AJ
2025:KER:42503
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43674/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 10-5-2024
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER ,VADAKKANCHERRY DATED 8-10-2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12-11-2024 OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 10-5-2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 11-4-2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
15-4-2024
