Kerala High Court
Ajithakumari vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 29 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:37272
WP(C) NO. 26967 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26967 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AJITHAKUMARI,
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O.SADANANDAN, ‘HARISREE', MARINGATH ROAD,
ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679321
BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
R.D.O. OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
2 AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679321
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, ANGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679321
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:37272
WP(C) NO. 26967 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order
and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext. P3
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
5.13 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 6/1-6 in
Angadippuram Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk,
Malappuram District, covered by Ext. P1 basic tax
receipt. The petitioner's property is a dry land.
However, the respondents have erroneously classified
the petitioner's property as 'paddy land' and included
it in data bank. In the said background, the petitioner
had submitted Ext.P3 application, to remove the
property from the data bank. But, the 1st respondent,
by solely relying on the report of the 2nd respondent
2025:KER:37272
WP(C) NO. 26967 OF 2024
and without directly inspecting the property or calling
for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules, has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P3
application by Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 order is
erroneous and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 1st respondent has filed a statement, inter
alia, stating that the 2nd respondent had conducted a
local inspection of the petitioner's property and found
that the coconut trees standing in the property are less
than 5 years, the property has been illegally converted
after 2008, and the property is suitable for paddy
cultivation, if restored. Therefore, the property cannot
be excluded from the data bank. Hence, the writ
petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, her
property is a dry land and is not suitable for paddy
2025:KER:37272
WP(C) NO. 26967 OF 2024
cultivation. The respondents have erroneously
classified the property as paddy land and included it in
the data bank. The 1st respondent has not considered
Ext.P3 application in its proper perspective and passed
the impugned order.
6. In a plethora of judicial precedents, 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)).
2025:KER:37272
WP(C) NO. 26967 OF 2024
7. Ext.P4 order substantiates that the 1 st
respondent has not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the petitioner's
property as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, the
date of commencement of the Act or whether the
removal of the petitioner's property from the data bank
would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. Instead,
the 1st respondent has solely relied on the report of the
2nd respondent, who in turn has stated that the
petitioner has illegally converted the property after
2008 and if the property is restored, it is fit for paddy
cultivation.
8. Indisputably, the 1st respondent has not
directly inspected the property or called for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Hence, I am convinced that there is total non-
application of mind in passing the impugned order and
the same is liable to be quashed, and the first
2025:KER:37272
WP(C) NO. 26967 OF 2024
respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider
the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after
adverting to the principles 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 first 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 envisaged
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
2025:KER:37272
WP(C) NO. 26967 OF 2024
images. However, in case, he directly inspect 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
rmm/29/5/2025
2025:KER:37272
WP(C) NO. 26967 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26967/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
06.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, ANGADIPPURAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
16.02.2023 IN FORM NO.5 UNDER KERALA
CONSERVATION OF PADDYLAND AND WET LAND
ACT, 2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2023
PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
05.12.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.4388/2023 BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE IN THE ADJACENT
PROPERTY
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2021
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY
OWNED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
