Sreejith Narayanan Kunniyur vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 6766 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sreejith Narayanan Kunniyur vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 June, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                            2025:KER:42632

               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. 2227 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

            SREEJITH NARAYANAN KUNNIYUR
            AGED 44 YEARS
            S/O. THE LATE NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, DIRECTOR,
            M/S. ASTEN MALLS PRIVATE LIMITED,
            B7, 3RD FLOOR, JAY CHAMBERS, DAYALDAS ROAD,
            VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI CITY,
            MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400057
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.S.M.PREM
            SRI.H.NARAYANAN
            SRI.G INDUCHUDAN
            SHRI.MUHAMMED NAHAS T.
            SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
            SMT.PREEJA. P.VIJAYAN
            SMT.SMITHA (EZHUPUNNA)
            SMT.VANDANA BHAT T.V.
            KUM.PAVAN ROSE JOHNSON
            SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.)


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
            REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
            FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001

    2       THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
            CONVENER OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
            THRIKKAKARA, MUNICIPALITY,
            OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
            KRISHIBHAVAN, THRIKKAKARA, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD,
            KUNNUMPURAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030


OTHER PRESENT:
           GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT JESSY S SALIM

     THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
16.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 2227 OF 2025       2

                                                 2025:KER:42632


                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of June, 2025

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order

and direct the first respondent to reconsider Ext. P2

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, the Director of a private

limited company, is the owner in possession of 107.11

Ares of land covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Even

though the petitioner's property is a dry land, the

respondents have erroneously classified the same as

paddy land and included it in the data bank. To exclude

the property from the data bank, the petitioner had

submitted Ext. P2 application before the first

respondent. The first respondent had called for Ext. P5

report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and

Environment Centre (KSREC) as envisaged under Rule

2025:KER:42632

4(4f) of the Rules. Even after finding that the land is

not suitable for paddy cultivation, the first respondent

has passed Ext. P6 order, perfunctorily rejecting Ext.

P2 application. Ext. P6 order is erroneous and illegal.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

4. The petitioner's specific case is that, his

property is a dry land. It is not suitable for paddy

cultivation. As per Ext. P5 KSREC report, it is specifically

observed that, as per the data of 2008, there are

structures with scattered plantation in the said property,

which pattern has continued in the years 2011, 2017 and

2022; the first respondent has not accepted the same.

Since the first respondent has not directly inspected the

property, he is bound to adhere to the observations made

in Ext. P5 KSREC report in view of Rule 4(4f) of the

Rules.

2025:KER:42632

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

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. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents

Association and Another v. District Collector,

Ernakulam and others (2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division

Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a

property is lying fallow and gets waterlogged during the

2025:KER:42632

rainy season or otherwise, due to the low-lying nature of

the property, the property cannot be treated as wetland

or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar

view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi

Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda,

(2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the prime consideration

to retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether

paddy cultivation is possible in the land.

7. Ext. P6 order substantiates that the first

respondent has not directly inspected the property.

Instead, he had called for satellite images as envisaged

under the Rules, but the first respondent rejected the

application by one-line order stating that there is no

material to substantiate that the petitioner's property

was converted before 12.08.2008. 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, or whether the removal

2025:KER:42632

of the petitioner's property from the data bank would

adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality.

Therefore, I am satisfied that there has been total non-

application of the mind in passing Ext.P6 order, 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.P6 order is quashed.

(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is

directed to reconsider Ext. P2 application, in

accordance with law and the observations in Ext.

P5 KSREC report, and as expeditiously as possible,

at any rate, within two months from the date of the

2025:KER:42632

production of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/16.05.25

2025:KER:42632

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2227/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 16- 06-2023 SHOWING CLASSIFICATION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AS 'NILAM'.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05-11- 2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM 5 UNDER RULE 4(D) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND RULES, 2008.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.

856/2008 DATED 26-09-2008 ISSUED BY THE THEN SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE), THRIKKAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-10-2023 PASSED IN W.P. (C) NO. 33348 OF 2023.

EXHIBIT P5            TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC SATELLITE DATA
                      INFORMATION            REPORT             NO.

A-172/2015/KSREC/006522/24 DATED 07-09-2024 ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03-12-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT P2 APPLICATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE KSREC REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 09-01-2025 PASSED IN CON. CASE (C) NO. 3199 OF 2024. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.04.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO FORM 5 APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE EYE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE FEW PHOTOGRAPHS DEMONSTRATING THE LIE AND LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA