Kerala High Court
Sabu Thomas vs The Revenue Divisional Officer Punalur on 23 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:35495
WP(C) NO. 35057 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2025 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 35057 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SABU THOMAS,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O OOMMAN THOMAS, RESIDING AT SOUMYALAYAM,
POOVATOORKIAZHKKU MURI, KALAYAPURAM P.O,
KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691560
BY ADVS.
ATHIRA RAMESH
LITA CHANDRAN.S
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PUNALUR,
REVENUE TOWER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691305
2 THE CONVENER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE &
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KULAKKADA,
KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691521
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
KULAKKADA,
KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691521
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
KALAYAPURAM, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -
691521
SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:35495
WP(C) NO. 35057 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P8 order
and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P7
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 6.77
Ares of land comprised in Resurvey Nos.271/13 and
271/6 in Block No.012 of Kalayapuram Village,
Kottarakara Taluk, Kollam District, covered by Ext.P1
land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a dry land
and is situated on the MC Road highway. The
respondents have erroneously classified the petitioner's
property as "paddy land" and included it in the data
bank. In the said background, the petitioner had
submitted Ext.P7 application before the 1st respondent
2025:KER:35495
WP(C) NO. 35057 OF 2024
to remove his property from the data bank. However,
the 1st respondent, based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer that the property is surrounded by
paddy fields, has rejected the application by the
impugned Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 order is erroneous,
illegal and is passed without any application of mind.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. It is the petitioner's case that, his property is a
dry land and situated on the side of the MC Road.
According to the petitioner, by Exts.P2 and P3
certificates issued by the respondents 3 and 4 in the
year 2014, it is certified that his property is not fit for
paddy cultivation. Subsequently, the petitioner had
obtained Ext.P4 building permit, to construct a
commercial building in the property, which order was
confirmed by Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal for Local Self
Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram.
2025:KER:35495
WP(C) NO. 35057 OF 2024
Notwithstanding Exts.P2 and P3 certificates, the 1 st
respondent has rejected Ext.P7 application.
5. In a catena of judgments, this Court has held
that, it is 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. Ext.P8 order undoubtedly reveals that, the 1 st
respondent has rejected Ext.P7 application only for the
reason that the petitioner's property is surrounded by
paddy fields based on the report of the LLMC.
7. In Rasheed C. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub
2025:KER:35495
WP(C) NO. 35057 OF 2024
Collector [2025 KHC 1666], this Court has succinctly
held that, a Form 5 application cannot be considered on
the basis of the observation of the LLMC, since the
procedure is not envisaged under the Act. The Rules
only provide to call for a report from the Agricultural
Officer, to ascertain the character of the applicant's
land. In case the Revenue Divisional Officer has any
doubt in his mind, he can also direct the Agricultural
Officer to call for a scientific report from the Kerala
State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSERC)
as contemplated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
8. In the case at hand, as evident from Exts.P2 and
P3 issued in the year 2014, it is certified that the
petitioner's property is unfit for paddy cultivation. 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
2025:KER:35495
WP(C) NO. 35057 OF 2024
paddy cultivation. The 1st respondent also did not call
for a report from KSREC, to ascertain the character of
the petitioner's property as in the year 2008. It is
without resorting to any of the above courses
contemplated under the statute, the 1 st respondent
passed the impugned order. I find that the entire
decision making process leading to Ext.P8 order is
vitiated and suffers from errors of law. Hence, I am
convinced that Ext.P8 order is liable to be quashed and
the 1st respondent be directed to re-consider the matter
afresh, in accordance with law, the principles laid down
by this Court 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 petitioner would be at liberty to file an
application before the 3rd respondent, with a copy
of this judgment, after depositing the requisite fee,
to call for a report from the KSREC, to ascertain
2025:KER:35495
WP(C) NO. 35057 OF 2024
the nature, lie and character of the property;
(iii). The 3rd 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
re-consider Ext.P7 application, in accordance with
law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within two months from the date of receipt of a
report from the 3rd respondent.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
rmm23/5/2025
2025:KER:35495
WP(C) NO. 35057 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35057/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX
RECEIPT DATED 19.9.2024 ISSUED BY THE
KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE OFFICER IN RESPECT
OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
KULAKKADA GRAM PANCHAYATH DATED
10.10.2014
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
KULAKKADA GRAM PANCHAYATH DATED
16.12.2014
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
ISSUED BY THE KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER DATED
16.12.2014
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE KULAKKADA GRAM PANCHAYATH DATED
26.3.2015
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
20.6.2016
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON
23.11.2022
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT IN NO.1361/2023 DATED
24.8.2024
