Kerala High Court
Vishnuprasad vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 23 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:45216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
VISHNUPRASAD,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. SUNDARAN, KORANGODE HOUSE, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
SHRI.K.V.ANTONY
SMT.A.P.BEELAMMA
SMT.VIJINA K.
SRI.ARUL MURALIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PALAKKAD OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD (DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE UNDER THE
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT,
2008)., PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KANNADI OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KANNADI
PALAKKAD DISTRICT ( LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND
ACT, 2008)., PIN - 678703
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANNADI -I VILLAGE, KANNADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678703
WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:45216
SR GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:45216
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P8 order and
direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P5 application
submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of
the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,
2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.24
Ares of land comprised in Re.Survey No.902/39 in Block
No.51 of Kannadi-I Village, Palakkad Taluk, covered by
Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a
converted land. The respondents have erroneously
classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in
the data bank. To exclude the property from the data
bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application
before the 1st respondent. But, by the impugned Ext.P8
order, the 1st respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P5
application, without any application of mind. Even though
the 1st respondent had received Ext.P7 report from the
2025:KER:45216
Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (in
short 'KSREC'), as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules
and in the said report it was found that the petitioner's
property is a fallow land, the 1st respondent has passed the
impugned Ext.P8 order. Hence, Ext.P8 order is illegal and
arbitrary.
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 it is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. Even though he had filed Ext.P5 application
before the 1st respondent, the same has been rejected,
without any application of mind.
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
2025:KER:45216
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 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.
2025:KER:45216
7. Ext.P8 order substantiates that the 1st
respondent has not directly inspected the property.
Instead, he had called for Ext.P7 report from the KSREC.
In Ext.P7 report, it is specifically stated that, as per the
data of 2008, the petitioner's property is bordered by a
road on the east and there is fallow land on the western
side. The said pattern has continued in the data of 2010,
2011, 2017 and 2023. As held in the decisions referred to
above, this Court had categorically held that, mere
fallowness of a land is not a ground to treat a property as a
paddy land. Nonetheless, without rendering any specific
findings 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,
the 1st respondent has passed the impugned Ext.P8 order.
Thus, I am satisfied that Ext.P8 order is liable to be
quashed and the 1st respondent/authorised officer be
directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance
2025:KER:45216
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.P8 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application, in
accordance with law. It would be up to the
authorised officer to either directly inspect the
property or rely on the satellite images as per the
procedure provided under Rule 4(4f). The above
exercise shall be carried out 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
AJ
2025:KER:45216
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4547/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD
2024-2025 DATED 11-7-2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
FROM THE 3 RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 25-
11-2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3 RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT NO.15233 DATED
5-12-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT TO
PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY ON
ALL THE FOUR SIDES OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
COVERED BY EXHIBITS P1 TO P3
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 28-11-
2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-12-2023 IN FILE
NO. 10469/2023 PASSED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT IN
FAVOUR OF SUNIL KUMAR IMMEDIATE WESTERN NEIGHBOR OF
PETITIONER
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15-7-2024 ISSUED BY
THE DIRECTOR OF KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 2 ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE NO. 5243/2024 DATED
14-8-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT
