Kerala High Court
Biju Baby vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:42604
WP(C) NO. 385 OF 2025
1
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. 385 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BIJU BABY,
AGED 55 YEARS
THAYYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUPURAM P.O, VIA KUMBAZHA,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689653
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MATHEW THOMAS
SMT.NIKITTA TRESSY GEORGE
SHRI.DIPAK CHERIAN ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 691523
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, COLLECTORATE RD, CHITTOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
3 PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, MINI
CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KALLARAKADAVU RD., CHUTTIPARA,
VALANCHUZY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
2025:KER:42604
WP(C) NO. 385 OF 2025
2
5 TAHSILDAR,
FIRST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOZHENCHERRY,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KALLARAKADAVU RD.,CHUTTIPARA,
VALANCHUZY,PATHANAMTHITTA REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PIN - 689645
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:42604
WP(C) NO. 385 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P11 order
and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P10
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
7.23 cents of land covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt.
Out of the said property, 4 cents of land is erroneously
classified as paddy land and included in the data bank.
In fact the petitioner was granted Ext.P5 order under
clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order ( KLU
order, in short) to use the property for any other
purpose. Nonetheless, the petitioner had submitted
Ext.P10 application, to exclude the property from the
data bank. But, by the impugned Ext.P11 order, the
1st respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P10
2025:KER:42604
WP(C) NO. 385 OF 2025
application, solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer. The 1st respondent has not
directly inspected the property or called for the
satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules. Ext.P11 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. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. By Ext.P5 order, the petitioner was granted
permission under the KLU Order to use the property for
any other purpose. But, on the direction of the
respondents, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P10
application. Nonetheless, the 1st respondent without
any application of mind, has rejected Ext.P10 application
by the impugned Ext.P11 order.
5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court
2025:KER:42604
WP(C) NO. 385 OF 2025
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 (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.P11 order substantiates that the first
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature, character or
lie of the petitioner's property as on 12.08.2008, or
whether the exclusion of the petitioner's property from
2025:KER:42604
WP(C) NO. 385 OF 2025
the data bank would adversely affect the paddy
cultivation. He has also not referred to Ext.P5 KLU
order passed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, I am
convinced and satisfied that Ext.P11 order has been
passed without any application of mind, and the same 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.P11 order is quashed.
(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P10 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
2025:KER:42604
WP(C) NO. 385 OF 2025
procedure provided under Rule 4(4f) at the expense
of the petitioner. The first respondent shall also
consider the significance of Ext.P5 KLU order
granted in favour of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider Ext.P10
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
rmm/16/6/2025
2025:KER:42604
WP(C) NO. 385 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 385/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED
04.04.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RDO
DATED 15.04.2004
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION MAHAZAR
PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VILLAGE
OFFICER DATED 06.06.2004
Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER BEARING NUMBER
561/2004 DATED 08.06.2004
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT TAHSILDAR DATED 18.10.2004
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER ISSUED DATED
04.11.2004
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CONVERSION CESS RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY
DATED 22.07.2005
Exhibit P6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CONCURRENCE ORDER ISSUED
BY THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 26.04.2007
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 18.11.2022
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
DATA BANK
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VILLAGE
OFFICER DATED 19.01.2023
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER FORM-5
OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF WETLAND AND
PADDY LAND RULES, 2008 DATED 22.01.2023
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT RDO DATED 11.09.2024
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT LLMC DATED 17.01.2024
ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED
05.12.2024
