Kerala High Court
Sukanya.S vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 23 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO.35771 OF 2024
2025:KER:45010
1
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. 35771 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUKANYA.S.,
AGED 26 YEARS
W/O ARUN , KAVIL VEEDU, VAYANASALA, KINASSERY
P.O,PALAKKAD, PIN - 678701
BY ADV SMT.M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KANNADI KRISHI BHAVAN, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678701
GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: G:
WP(C) NO.35771 OF 2024
2025:KER:45010
2
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.35771 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and
direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P3 application
submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 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
Ares and 2 Sq.meters of land comprised in Survey
No.621/22 in block No.050 of Kannadi -II Village, Palakkad
Taluk covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The
petitioner's property is a 'converted land'. But, 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 Ext.P3 application before the 1 st respondent.
WP(C) NO.35771 OF 2024
2025:KER:45010
However, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the 1st
respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P3 application
without any application of mind. Ext.P4 order is illegal and
arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, her
property is a 'converted land', and is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. Even though she has submitted Ext.P3
application to exclude the property from the data bank,
the same has been rejected by the 1 st respondent without
directly inspecting the property or calling for the satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
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
WP(C) NO.35771 OF 2024
2025:KER:45010
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.P4 order substantiates that the 1st 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 the data bank would
adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. Thus,
I am convinced and satisfied that Ext.P4 order has been
passed without any application of mind, and the same is
liable to be quashed and the 1 st respondent/authorised
WP(C) NO.35771 OF 2024
2025:KER:45010
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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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 Ext.P3 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
WP(C) NO.35771 OF 2024
2025:KER:45010
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
SCB.23.06.25.
WP(C) NO.35771 OF 2024
2025:KER:45010
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35771/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECIEPT DATED
10.05.2024 ISSUED BY KANNADI II VILLAGE.
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 13.05.2024 ISSUED BY
KANNADI II VILLAGE.
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 21.05.2024.
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
DATED 06.09.2024 ISSUED BY RDO.
