Kerala High Court
Dr. Balram Arathil Candoth vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 29 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 101 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:37874
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. 101 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 DR. BALRAM ARATHIL CANDOTH,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O MOHAN RAMDAS KINATTUPUAYIL, H.NO. IX 816, RAMA
LAKSHMI,NCC OFFICE ROAD, PAYYANUR P.O, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
2 DR. KRISHNAN CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O CHADRASHEKHARAN NAIR, SOUPARNIKA, RAJEEV NAGAR,
PALLITHOTTAM CHERRY, PALLITHOTTAM P.O., KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 691006
3 AJAY BALARAM ACHATH,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O BALRAM, NETHRAYATHI, PERINTHALMANA P.O.,
PUTHOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
4 ASWIN NELLOORA,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O NANU NELLIYOORA NELLIYOORA HOUSE, MUKKOM P.O.,
THAZHECODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673602
5 ABDUL MAJEED K. P.,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O BAVA K. P., FLAT NO. 4 A, SPRINGDALE APARTMENT,
THYNOTHIL ROAD, BYPASS JUNCTION, ALUVA HEAD POST
OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683101
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI
SHRI.BINIYAMIN K.S.
WP(C) NO. 101 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:37874
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K.B. JACOB ROAD, FORT
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, PARK AVENUE, MARINE
DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KEEZMADU VILLAGE, KEEZHMAD, ERUMATHALA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683112
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KEEZMADU KRISHI BHAVAN, KEEZHMAD, ERUMATHALA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683112
6 KEEZHMAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, ERUMATHALA P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683112
7 MR. JAWAD K. HASSAN,
AGED 83 YEARS
S/O. A NAGOOR ROWTHER, MACKAR MANZIL, FBOA ROAD,
ALUVA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683101
BY ADV SHRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 101 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:37874
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 101 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P12 order
and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P8
application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,
2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioners are the owners of the properties
covered by Exts.P1 to P5 basic land tax receipts. The said
properties are converted land. There are villas constructed
in the said properties. Paddy cultivation is not possible in
the said properties. However, the properties have been
erroneously classified the properties as 'paddy lands' and
included in the data bank. In the said background the
petitioners' predecessor-in-interest submitted Ext.P8
application to exclude the property from the data bank.
But, the 1st respondent, by solely relying on the report of
the Agricultural Officer/ 5th respondent, has perfunctorily
WP(C) NO. 101 OF 2025
2025:KER:37874
rejected Ext.P8 application by Ext.P12 order. Ext.P12 is
erroneous and illegal. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing
Counsel for the 6th respondent.
4. The petitioners' specific case is that their
properties are converted land. There are villas constructed
in the said property. They have purchased their property
along with the villas. By no stretch of imagination, can it
be said that paddy cultivation can be carried out in the
said properties. In fact the provisions of the Act is not
applicable to the case at hand. But, since the respondents
have erroneously classified the land as paddy land and
included in the data bank, the petitioners' predecessor-in-
interest submitted Ext.P8 application, to exclude the
property from the data bank. The 1 st respondent, without
inspecting the property in person and solely based on the
report of the Agricultural Officer, has rejected the
application.
5. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, this
WP(C) NO. 101 OF 2025
2025:KER:37874
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. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association
and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others
(2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division Bench of this Court has held
that, merely because a property is lying fallow and gets
waterlogged during the rainy season or otherwise, due to
the low-lying nature of the property, the property cannot
be treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of
Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken by this Court in
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
WP(C) NO. 101 OF 2025
2025:KER:37874
Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the prime
consideration to retain a property in data bank is to
ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land.
7. Ext.P12 order substantiates that the 1st
respondent has not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the petitioners' land
as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, whether the
removal of the petitioners' property from the data bank
would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. Indisputably,
the 1st respondent has also not inspected the property
directly. Instead he relied on the reports of the
Agricultural Officer and the satellite images prepared
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
8. On a reading of Ext.P11 report prepared by the
Kerala State Remote Sensing & Environment Centre, it
can be seen that there is a tank/pond in the property on
the south east corner. There is a building/structure
towards the west part and activities of tank/pond was
observed in the data of the year 2013. The land pattern
has continued in the same pattern in 2018 also. Therefore,
WP(C) NO. 101 OF 2025
2025:KER:37874
prima facie, I find that the petitioners' properties are
landlocked with buildings and structures.
9. In Niyas vs. District Collector, Palakkad (2023
KHC 9342) this Court has categorically held that if a
property is landlocked by permanent construction like
roads and buildings, the same cannot be put to paddy
cultivation.
10. On an overall consideration of the facts and the
materials on record, I am satisfied that the impugned
order has been passed without any application of mind.
Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P12 order is liable to be
quashed and the 1st respondent/authorised officer be
directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance
with law, after adverting to 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.P12 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P8 application, in accordance
WP(C) NO. 101 OF 2025
2025:KER:37874
with law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within a period of two months from the date
of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/29.05.25
WP(C) NO. 101 OF 2025
2025:KER:37874
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 101/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL070423037553/2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 16.04.2024
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL07042303761/2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 16.04.2024
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL07042303746/2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 16.04.2024
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL07042303764/2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 16.04.2024
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL07042307333/2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 02.07.2024
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDINGS OF THE
VILLA
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA
BANK PUBLISHED BY THE KEEZHMAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT
IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 19.04.20212
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE ERSTWHILE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.09.2021
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
DECISIONS HELD IN THE MEETING OF THE LOCAL LEVEL
MONITORING COMMITTEE, KEEZHMAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT
DATED 10.03.2022
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT GIVEN BY THE
DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING &
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE (KSREC) TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT
DATED 15.11.2029
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE FORM 5
APPLICATION PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
22.06.2024
