Kerala High Court
Sherly Joseph vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO.9417 OF 2025
2025:KER:44446
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 9417 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHERLY JOSEPH,
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. JOSEPH, 4E, CORAL TRUST APARTMENT,SRM ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
BY ADVS.
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SRI.BOBY THOMAS
SHRI.G.MOTILAL
SMT.BINI ELIZABETH
SHRI.PAUL T. SAMUEL
SHRI.VIVEK P.C.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI,
FORT KOCHI P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A),
(RDO (U/S 2(XVA) FOR TALUK), COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR THE EDATHALA
GRAMAPANCHAYAT,
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND
WP(C) NO.9417 OF 2025
2025:KER:44446
2
WETLAND ACT, 2008, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, EDATHALA GRAMAPANCHAYAT,
EDATHALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683564
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN EDATHALA, EDATHALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
683564
GP SMT JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.9417 OF 2025
2025:KER:44446
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.9417 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and
direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P2 application
filed in Form 5 by the petitioner 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
2.99 Ares of land in Survey No.324/14-5-3 in Block No.36
in Aluva East Village, Aluva Taluk. The petitioner's
property is a 'dry land' and is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. Nonetheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the petitioner's property as a
paddy land and included it in the data bank. To exclude
the property from the data bank, the petitioner had
WP(C) NO.9417 OF 2025
2025:KER:44446
submitted Ext.P2 application before the 1st respondent.
Even though the 4th respondent/Agricultural Officer and
Ext.P4 report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre (KSREC), was produced before the
1st respondent, he has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2
application by Ext.P6 order without any application of
mind. Ext.P6 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, her property is
a dry land and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. It is
surrounded by roads and buildings. Even though she
submitted Ext.P2 application before the 1 st respondent, the
same has been perfunctorily rejected without any
application of mind. The Agricultural Officer's report as
well as the KSREC report clearly shows that the property
WP(C) NO.9417 OF 2025
2025:KER:44446
is a fallow land with roads/constructions even in the data of
2008. The said pattern has continued in the subsequent
years. Notwithstanding the said reports, the 1 st respondent
has rejected the application.
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
(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
WP(C) NO.9417 OF 2025
2025:KER:44446
and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others
(2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division Bench of this Court has held
that, merely because a property is lying fallow and water
gets logged during rainy season or otherwise, due to the
low lying nature of the property, it 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 1st respondent
has not directly inspected the property. He has only relied
on Ext.P5 report of the Agricultural Officer and Ext.P6
report of the KSREC. In Ext.P6 report, it is explicitly stated
that the property is fallow land with road/construction in
the data of 2008. Thus, as on the date of coming into force
WP(C) NO.9417 OF 2025
2025:KER:44446
of the Act, there are constructions in the property and is a
fallow land. Nonetheless, the 1 st respondent has not
rendered any independent findng regarding the nature and
character 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. Therefore, I am convinced and satisfied that
Ext.P6 order has been passed without any application of
mind, and the same is liable to be quashed and the 1 st
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 1st respondent/authorised officer is
WP(C) NO.9417 OF 2025
2025:KER:44446
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within three months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.20.06.25.
WP(C) NO.9417 OF 2025
2025:KER:44446
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9417/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
06.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF
THE THIRD RESPONDENT WHICH HELD ON
20.10.2020
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE
KSREC IN RELATION TO THE PETITIONER'S PLOT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 21.03.2022
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2025
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
