Kerala High Court
Deepa Pai @ Deepa Nagaraj vs The Revenue Divisional Officer (Rdo), ... on 27 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) No.17897 of 2025 1
2025:KER:36496
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 17897 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DEEPA PAI @ DEEPA NAGARAJ
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O M. NAGARAJ, RESIDING AT RADHAS, ALAMIPPALLY,
KANHANGAD (P.O), KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671315
BY ADVS.
JAWAHAR JOSE
GEORGE JAMES VATTATHARA
GREGORY PRINCE MYLADI
RESPONDENT:
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO), KANHANGAD
KANHANGAD (P.O), KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671315
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.17897 of 2025 2
2025:KER:36496
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the respondent to
consider Ext.P2 application (Form 6) submitted under
Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and
the Rules framed thereunder (in short 'Act and Rules') .
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 7.80
cents (3.18 Ares) of land in Hosdurg Village, Kasargod
District. The petitioner's property is a converted land
prior to 12.08.2008. The petitioner with two others have
constructed a hotel complex in the said property, as
evident from Ext.P5 occupancy certificate. However, the
revenue authorities have erroneously classified the land as
paddy land and had included it in the data bank.
Consequently, the petitioner had filed a Form 5 application
under Rule 4(d) of the Rules and the same was allowed.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 application to
change the nature of the land in the revenue records. But,
2025:KER:36496
by Ext.P3 order, the respondent returned the application,
directing the petitioner to remit the requisite fee to call for
a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre (in short 'KSREC'). The procedure
directed in Ext.P3 order is not envisaged under the Act and
Rules. Ext.P3 order is illegal and arbitrary.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. It is not in dispute that, pursuant to Ext.P1 order,
the petitioner's property was removed from the data bank.
Subsequently, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2
application, to change the nature of the land in the
revenue records. However, the respondent has returned
the application, directing him to pay the fee to obtain a
report from the KSREC.
5. The procedure to change the nature of a property
from the revenue records is envisaged under Section 27A
read with Rule 12(1) of the Act and Rules.
6. It is apposite to refer to Sub-Sections (1) to (4) of
Section 27A and Sub-rules (1) to (5) of Rule 12, which are
2025:KER:36496
relevant for this case and read as follows:
(A) Section 27A Change of nature of unnotified land.--
(1) If any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such
land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall
apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such
manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment,
decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the
Revenue Divisional Officer may, after considering the reports of the
Village Officer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and
proper on such applications, ensuring that there is no disruption to
the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any,
through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary:
Provided that, if the area of such parcel of land where the
application is allowed is more than 20.2 Ares, ten per cent of such
land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures.
(3) If the application is allowed, the applicant shall be liable
to pay a fee at such rate as may prescribed:
Provided that, no such fee shall be collected if the applicant
proves that the land where the application is allowed is, filled up or
naturally filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967, the date of
commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, after
completing such procedure, as may be prescribed.
(4) If the application is allowed, the Revenue Divisional
Officer shall ensure that the reclamation of the unnotified land shall
not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if
any, in the adjoining land and shall specify such water conservancy
measures as is necessary to ensure such cultivation:
2025:KER:36496
Provided that in specifying such water conservancy measures,
the Revenue Divisional Officer may, if he deems fit, refer to
satellite maps of the area maintained by Government agencies.
(B) Rule 12. The procedure for permitting change in nature of
unnotified lands as per Sub Section (2) of Section 27A.-
(1) In the case of an application for changing the nature of
unnotified land having an extent upto 20.23 Are, the application
shall be in Form-6 and that in respect of land having an extent
above 20.23 Are shall be in Form-7.
(2) Along with the application, sketch of such land, details
regarding the plinth area of the building proposed to be constructed
on said land shall be enclosed and wherein the extent of proposed
land exceeds 20.23 Are, Ten percentage (10 %) of the proposed
land kept aside as a part of water conservancy measures shall be
marked in the sketch in blue colour and the rest of the land shall be
marked in red colour clearly in the sketch and a detailed plan
regarding the water conservancy measures proposed to be
implemented on the said 10 % land shall be included therein.
(3) Along with the said application either a demand draft
of Rs.1000/- (Rupees Thousand only) in favour of said fund or
proof of deposit of Rs.1000/- (Rupees Thousand only) via electronic
transfer to the said fund shall be produced.
(4) Revenue Divisional Officer shall forward the
applications received as per Sub Rule (1) to Village Officer for
report and Village Officer shall mark entry of the same in the
Register maintained as per Form-8 and shall investigate upon the
applications as per the order of priority and submit a report before
Revenue Divisional Officer within fifteen days.
2025:KER:36496
(5) The report as per Sub Rule (4) shall specify the details
whether such permission for change in the nature of land, hinders
free water flow to adjacent paddy lands if any, and the accuracy of
sketch submitted along with the application shall be examined and
details regarding that shall be included.
7. The above provisions lay down the procedure to be
followed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider
Form 6 application. The above provisions obligates the
Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the report of the
Village Officer, and ensure that there is no disruption of
the free flow of water to the neighboring paddy fields, if
any, through such water conservancy measures as he may
deem fit. It is only when the extent of land exceeds 20.2
Ares, the Revenue Divisional Officer is obliged to also get
an opinion from the Agricultural Officer regarding the
effectiveness of the water conservancy measures to be
implemented by the applicant. The above provisions do
not provide to call for the satellite images from the
Central/State Institute of Science and Technology as per
Rule 4(4f). The said procedure is only to consider a
Form 5 application.
2025:KER:36496
8. In Shinila P.C v. State of Kerala [2025(2) KHC
273], this Court has held that, while conducting an enquiry
in an application filed under Form 6, the scope of enquiry
is confined to the question as to whether the change of
nature of the property would result in disruption of free
flow of water to the neighboring paddy fields or would
affect the cultivation of paddy or other crops, if any, in the
adjacent lands. Beyond these aspects, no other matter,
including the question as to whether the property was
converted prior to 2008, would come within the scope of
such enquiry. A similar view has been taken by this Court
in George Varghese v. District Collector [2023(7) KHC
93].
9. On an analysis of the scheme of the Act and the
Rules frames thereunder. I am of the definite view that,
the direction of the respondent to obtain satellite images is
untenable and beyond the scope of enquiry. Hence, I am
hold that Ext.P3 order directing the petitioner to deposit
the prescribed fee is liable to be quashed and the
respondent be directed to consider Ext.P2 application, as
2025:KER:36496
per the above quoted provisions of law, without insisting
for the satellite images.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the following
manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The respondent is directed to dispose of
Ext.P2 application, as per the observations made
above, in accordance with law and as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate, 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
AJ/28.05.2025
2025:KER:36496
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17897/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13-9-2021
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM - 6
DATED 10-12-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT
GENERATED FROM THE ONLINE PORTAL
WWW.REVENUE.KERALA.QOV.IN
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED
26-5-2010 BEARING NUMBER B.A. 260/09-10.
Exhibit -P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE
DATED 3-3-2012 ISSUED BY THE KANHANGAD
MUNICIPALITY.
