Kerala High Court
Deepa P vs The Revenue Divisional ... on 22 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:35268
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2025 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DEEPA P,
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.K.T CHENTHAMARA,KOLAPPULLYKALAM
HOUSE,NAVAKODE,KODUVAYUR P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678501
BY ADVS.
JACOB SEBASTIAN
WINSTON K.V
ANU JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,PALAKKAD,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,PALAKKAD HEAD
POST OFFICE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE KODUVAYUR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,
AGRICULTURE OFFICE,KODUVAYUR P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678501
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KODUVAYUR-I VILLAGE OFFICE,KODUVAYUR P.O,PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
SR PP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:35268
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
2
C.S.DIAS, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 18007 of 2024
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and
direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the 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 is the owner in possession of 0.1295
hectors of land comprised in Re-survey Block No.1,
Re-survey No.766/1-1 of Koduvayur -I Village, Chittur
Taluk, Palakkad District, covered by Ext.P1 possession
certificate. The petitioner's property is a pucca garden
land and is situated in a residential area surrounded by
building. There is no paddy cultivation in near vicinity and
there is no possibility of water logging. The petitioner's
2025:KER:35268
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
property is lying in the said nature for the last 37 years.
However, the respondents have erroneously classified the
petitioner's property as paddy land and included the same
in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules
framed thereunder. In the said background, the petitioner
submitted a Form 5 application to remove her property
from the data bank. But, the 1st respondent rejected the
application by Ext.P3 order, which was challenged by the
petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.
37798/2023. By Ext.P4 judgment, this Court set aside
Ext.P3 order and directed the 1st respondent to reconsider
the petitioner's application after calling for a report from
the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre
(KSREC). Based on the said direction, the 1st respondent
had called for Ext.P5 report. Nonetheless, by Ext.P6
order, the 1st respondent has again rejected the
petitioner's Form 5 application without following the
2025:KER:35268
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
directions of this Court in Ext.P4 judgment or adverting to
any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. 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 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that, the petitioner's property is a garden land and has
been lying in the same nature for the last more than 37
years, which is evident from Ext.P2 location sketch and
Ext.P5 KSREC report. In Ext.P5, it is specifically stated
that the petitioner's property is fallow land since 2008
and has continued the same in 2010, 2012, 2016 and
2022. The learned counsel relied on the decision of this
Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and
Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others
[2020 (2) KHC 94] and Arthasasthra Ventures (India)
LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] in support of
the contention that, a fallow land can never be treated as
2025:KER:35268
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
paddy land. Merely because respondents have
erroneously included the petitioner's property as paddy
land in the data bank, the same cannot be treated as
paddy land. The petitioner's property is uncultivable.
There is no independent finding in the impugned order,
that if the petitioner's property is removed from the data
bank, it would adversely effect the paddy cultivation in
the locality. The 1st respondent ought to have relied on the
scientific data in Ext.P5 report and allowed the Form 5
application. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed.
5. The learned Government Pleader vehemently
opposed the writ petition. She submitted that the 1 st
respondent has legitimately concluded that the property
cannot be removed from the data bank, which in turn is
based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. She stated
that since there is no material to prove that the
petitioner's property has been converted prior to 2008
and further that the Agricultural Officer specifically found
2025:KER:35268
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
that the property is being left uncultivated, there is no
error in Ext.P6 order. Therefore, the writ petition may be
dismissed.
6. It is the petitioner's specific case that, her
property has been lying as a garden land for the last 37
years. As per Ext.P2 location sketch, there are buildings
surrounding her property. Therefore, her land is not
suitable for any sort of cultivation and may be removed
from the data bank.
7. In the challenge against Ext.P3 order, by Ext.P4
judgment, this Court allowed the writ petition in the
following manner :-
" Accordingly Ext.P3 order is set aside with
a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to
reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by
the petitioner in accordance with law, after calling
for a KSRSEC report which shall be at the expense
of the petitioner and after conducting a site
inspection. Petitioner will be free to submit her
notes of argument which shall also be duly
considered by the 1st respondent while
reconsidering the matter as directed above. After
obtaining KSRSEC report a decision on the
application in Form 5 shall be taken within an
outer limit of three months from the date of
receipt of the said report."
2025:KER:35268
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
8. Based on the above directions, the Agricultural
Officer obtained Ext.P5 KSREC report, wherein it is
observed as follows :-
"The analysis has been carried out from all
available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different
satellite data sets of 2018, 2010, 2012, 2016 and 2022
for the survey plot.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot
766/1 was observed as paddy land. The plot was
observed under fallow land in the data of 2008. The
same land use pattern was observed to continue in the
data 2010, 2012 and 2016. The data of 2022 shows
the plot under fallow land with vegetation along with
trees towards north side."
9. A reading of Ext.P5 report, undoubtedly shows
that, the petitioner's property has been lying as fallow
land in the data since 2008.
10. In Mather Nagar Residents Association's
case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has observed
as follows :-
" *********
Mere low lying or a fallow land can never be
considered and treated as wetland as per Act, 2008,
unless as said earlier, it is having the characteristic
features as defined under the Act. That being the
factual and legal situation, the contention that the
properties in question are wetlands as per Act, 2008
has no foundation or basis.
*********. "
2025:KER:35268
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
11. Similarly, in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue
Divisional Officer Irinjalakuda [2023 (6) KHC 83], this
Court has categorically held that the primary
consideration to retain a property in the data bank is to
ascertain whether the paddy cultivation is possible in the
property in question. Likewise, in Adani Infrastructures
and Developers Pvt.Ltd. Mumbai and others v. State
of Kerala and others [2014 (1) KHC 685], this Court
has succinctly held that, if the land suitable for paddy
cultivation is uncultivated and left fallow, and if the said
land is included as paddy land in the revenue records and
if the property is locked on all the four sides with lands
which are reclaimed before the coming into force of the
Act, such land cannot be treated as suitable for
cultivation and would come outside the definition of paddy
land.
12. In Mather Nagar's decision and in Sudheesh
U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023
2025:KER:35268
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
(2) KLT 386], this Court has held that just for the reason
that the property is left fallow, the land cannot be brought
within the definition of paddy land. The Revenue
Divisional Officer should be satisfied that the land is
suitable for paddy cultivation but has been left fallow,
which are the twin conditions to be satisfied while
considering an application under Form 5 of the Rules.
13. A reading of Ext.P6 order would substantiate that
the 1st respondent has not arrived at any independent
conclusion whether the the petitioner's property is
suitable for paddy cultivation, but the same has been left
fallow. Similarly, the 1st respondent has not rendered any
finding regarding the nature and characteristic of the
petitioner's property as on the crucial date that is
12.08.2008. Therefore, I am of the definite view that
Ext.P6 order suffers from non-application of mind and
stands vitiated. Hence, I am convinced that Ext.P6 order
is liable to be quashed and the 1 st respondent/Authorised
2025:KER:35268
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
Officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in
accordance with law, the principles laid down in the
aforecited decisions and the materials available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner :-
(i) Ext.P6 is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/Authorised Officer is directed
to reconsider the petitioner's Form 5 Application, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within 60 days from the date of production of a
copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
SCB.22.05.25.
2025:KER:35268
WP(C) NO. 18007 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18007/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 08.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE
PETITIONER'S PLOT AND THE ADJOINING PLOTS
ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2022
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.11.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 37798 OF 2023
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT OF THE
PLOT DATED 18.01.2024.
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2024
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
