Kerala High Court
Rony Paul vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 18969 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:42445
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. 18969 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
RONY PAUL,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O PAUL , KARUMATHY HOUSE, NEDUNANNOR , CHOWARA P.O.,
CHENGAMANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683571
BY ADVS.
SRI.SARUN RAJAN
SRI.P.B.SUNEER
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHEGAMANADU VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683102
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, CHENGAMANADU,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683102
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
CHENGAMANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHIBHAVAN,
CHENGAMANADU , ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683102
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 18969 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:42445
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order and
direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Form 5 application
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
03.50 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.90/2-5 in Block
No.8 of Chengamanadu Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam
District, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The
petitioner's property is a dry 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 Form 5 application before the 1st
respondent. But, by the impugned Ext.P2 order, the 1 st
respondent has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application,
without any application of mind. The 1st respondent has
not directly inspected the property or called for satellite
2025:KER:42445
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Hence,
Ext.P2 order is liable to be quashed.
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 filed Form 5 application
before the 1st respondent, the same has been rejected,
without any independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the property or without directly inspecting the
property or calling for the satellite images as envisaged
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
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
2025:KER:42445
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.P2 order substantiates that, the 1st
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite images as envisaged under the
Rules. The 1st 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.
Thus, I am satisfied that there is a total non application of
mind in passing Ext.P2 order, which is solely based on the
report of the Agricultural Officer. Therefore, I am
convinced and satisfied that Ext.P2 order is liable to be
quashed and the 1st respondent/authorised officer be
directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance
2025:KER:42445
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.P2 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Form 5 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 Form 5
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
2025:KER:42445
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:42445
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18969/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
04/01/2023 ISSUED CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE OFFICE.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2023
PASSED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT THEREBY
REJECTING THE FORM 5 APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER.
