Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Remani Lukose vs Village Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 6875 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6875 Ker
Judgement Date : 18 June, 2025

Kerala High Court

Remani Lukose vs Village Officer on 18 June, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 12029 OF 2024



                                                     2025:KER:43508
                                1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                     WP(C) NO. 12029 OF 2024

PETITIONER/S:

          REMANI LUKOSE,
          AGED 74 YEARS
          W/O LUKOSE (LATE), VETTIKKAL HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR P.O,
          UZHAVOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634


          BY ADVS.
          KUM.CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN
          SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)




RESPONDENT/S:

    1     VILLAGE OFFICER,
          VILLAGE OFFICE UZHAVOOR,UZHAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
          686634

    2     THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER (CONVENER),
          LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, VELLIYANNOOR
          PANCHAYAT, VELIYANNOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634

    3     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575


          GP JESSY S SALIM GP SMT DEEPA V


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12029 OF 2024



                                                      2025:KER:43508
                                    2

                              C.S.DIAS, J.
                  ---------------------------------------
                    WP(C) No.12029 of 2024
                 -----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 18th day of June, 2025

                               JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and

direct the 3rd respondent to re-consider 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 and her daughter are the co-

owners of 17.70 Ares of land comprised in Survey

Nos.427/8-1, 427/9-1 in Block No.2 of Uzhavoor Village,

Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District covered under Ext.P1

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 a Form 5 application WP(C) NO. 12029 OF 2024

2025:KER:43508

before the 3rd respondent. But, by the impugned Ext.P3

order, the 3rd respondent has perfunctorily rejected Form

5 application. In fact, by Ext.P4 order, the 3 rd respondent

has allowed a Form 5 application submitted by the

adjacent property owner. The petitioner is entitled to the

benefit of a similar order. Hence, Ext.P3 order may be

quashed.

3. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement,

asserting that the Agricultural Officer has reported that

the petitioner's property is low-lying and consists of

coconut trees. There is a water stream passing through the

petitioner's property. Therefore, the LLMC has

recommended not to exclude the petitioner's property

from the data bank. Hence, there is no illegality in Ext.P3

order.

4. Heard; the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

5. The petitioner's specific case is that, her WP(C) NO. 12029 OF 2024

2025:KER:43508

property is a 'converted land', it is not suitable for paddy

cultivation. Even though she submitted Form 5 application

before 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent without any

application of mind has rejected the same.

6. 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

(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)).

7. Ext.P3 order substantiates that the 3 rd respondent

has not directly inspected the property or called for the WP(C) NO. 12029 OF 2024

2025:KER:43508

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 the data bank would

adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality.

Moreover, it is discernible from Ext.P4 order that an

adjacent owner's property has been excluded from the

data bank. Thus, 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 3 rd

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.P3 order is quashed.

WP(C) NO. 12029 OF 2024

2025:KER:43508

(ii). The 3rd 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 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/-

SCB.18.06.25. C.S.DIAS, JUDGE WP(C) NO. 12029 OF 2024

2025:KER:43508

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12029/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.

KL05042300490/2024 DATED 16/02/2024 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND HER CHILDREN PREPARED BY AN AUTHORIZED SURVEYOR DATED NIL Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/04/2023 IN FILE NO. 1507/2023 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17/08/2023 IN FILE

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SATELLITE REPORT NO. A-

172/2025/KSREC/000973/2025 DATED 30/04/2025

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter