Rajalakshmi vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 6026 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6026 Ker
Judgement Date : 20 May, 2025

Kerala High Court

Rajalakshmi vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 20 May, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                              2025:KER:34479
WP(C) NO. 13703 OF 2025

                                       1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

     TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1947

                      WP(C) NO. 13703 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

             RAJALAKSHMI,
             AGED 56 YEARS
             ARA 111, W/O RAJAN,THEKKEVILAKAM, ATTUKAL, MANACADU
             P.O., ATTUKAL TEMPLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
             PIN - 695009

             BY ADVS.
             JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR)
             V.AJITH



RESPONDENTS:
    1     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          1ST FLOOR,CIVIL STATTION ANNEX,IRINJALAKUDA, PIN -
          680125
    2     THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
          KADUKUATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADUKUTTY KRISHI
          BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680309


OTHER PRESENT:

             SR PP SMT K K PREETHA


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   20.05.2025,   THE   COURT    ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                 2025:KER:34479
WP(C) NO. 13703 OF 2025

                               2


                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of May, 2025

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and

direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P4 application

(Form 5) submitted 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 10.52

Ares of property in Survey No.1346/8-3of the Kadukutty

Village in Chalakkudy Taluk, Thrissur District, covered by

Ext.P1 basic tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a

garden land with coconut trees and other plantations.

However, the respondents have erroneously included the

property in the data bank prepared under the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and

the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, the petitioner

has submitted Ext.P4 application on 15.9.2023 before the

1st respondent to remove her property from the data 2025:KER:34479 WP(C) NO. 13703 OF 2025

bank. However, the 1st respondent without adverting to

the material on record, solely on the basis of the report of

the 2nd respondent has rejected Ext.P4 application by the

impugned Ext.P6 order. 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 case is that, her property is a

garden land. It is only solely on the basis of the report of

the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent has rejected the

petitioner's application.

5. It is trite law that, it is nature, lie, character and

fitness of the land, as available on 12.08.2008 i.e., the

date of coming into force of the Act, that is to be

ascertained by the Revenue before taking a decision to

exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions

of this Court in Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional

Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386] and Joy K.K v. The 2025:KER:34479 WP(C) NO. 13703 OF 2025

Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and

others [2021 (1) KLT 433].

6. A reading of Ext.P6 order would establish that the

1st respondent has rejected Ext.P4 application solely

relying on the report of the 2 nd respondent, who has

reported that the petitioner's property is lying lower than

the road and there is likelihood of water logging in the

locality. Therefore, the petitioner's property cannot be

removed from the data bank.

7. On a consideration of the facts and materials on

record, I find that the 1st respondent has not rendered

any independent finding regarding the nature, lie or the

character of the petitioner's property as on the crucial

date i.e., 12.8.2008, or whether the removal of the

petitioner's property from the data bank would adversely

affect the paddy cultivation. The 1 st respondent has also

not called for a report from Kerala State Remote Sensing

and Environment Centre (KSREC), to ascertain the 2025:KER:34479 WP(C) NO. 13703 OF 2025

nature, and character of the petitioner's property before

passing the impugned order. As the 1st respondent has

failed to arrive at an independent finding regarding the

nature, lie and character of the petitioner's property, I

find that there has been total non-application of mind and

the decision making process is vitiated and erroneous.

Hence, I am convinced that Ext.P6 order is liable to be

quashed and the authorised officer be directed to

reconsider the matter afresh and in accordance with law,

after adverting to all the materials on record.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the

following manner:

(i). Ext.P6 order is quashed.

(ii). The petitioner would be at liberty to file an

application before the 2nd respondent, with a copy of

this judgment, after depositing the requisite fee, to

call for a report from the KSREC, to ascertain the

nature, lie and character of the property;

2025:KER:34479 WP(C) NO. 13703 OF 2025

(iii). The 2nd respondent shall, immediately on

receipt of the application, call for a report from the

KSREC; and on receipt of the same, within four

weeks forward the same with his report to the 1 st

respondent.

(iv). The 1st respondent/authorised officer shall

reconsider Ext.P4 application, in accordance with

law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within three months from the date of receipt of a

report from the 2nd respondent.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.