Kerala High Court
Kousalya P vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 30 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:37820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 34624 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KOUSALYA P.,
AGED 76 YEARS
W/O. K.C THEETHUNNI, KOLAPPLLYKALAM HOUSE, NAVAKODE,
KODUVAYUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
SMT.ARUNDHATHI SURESH BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, 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 1 VILLAGE OFFICE, KODUVAYUR P.O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:37820
WP(C) NO. 34624 OF 2024 2
C.S. DIAS, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.34624 of 2024
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Exts.P3 and
P4 orders and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider
Form 5 applications 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
0.872 hectares of land comprised in Block No.1 and
Survey Nos.71/10, 73/1, 73/2, 73/3 and 73/4 of
Koduvayur-1 Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District
covered by Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner's
property is a garden land with coconut cultivation. It is
not suitable for paddy cultivation. The physical
features of the petitioner's property show that the
trees are above 35 years of age. However, the
2025:KER:37820
respondents have erroneously classified the
petitioner's property as paddy land and included it in
data bank. In the said circumstances, the petitioner
had submitted Form 5 applications to exclude the
property from the data bank. Nonetheless, the 1 st
respondent, without inspecting the property directly
or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules, has perfunctorily rejected the Form
5 applications by the impugned Exts.P3 and P4 orders.
Exts.P3 and P4 orders are illegal and arbitrary and are
liable to be quashed.
3. The 1st respondent has filed a statement,
inter alia, stating that the petitioner was given ample
time to file her objection to the draft data bank. The
Agricultural Officer has reported that, there is a canal
flowing in front of the petitioner's property. If
conversion of the property is permitted, it will
adversely affect the adjacent paddy lands. Therefore,
the property cannot be removed from the data bank.
2025:KER:37820
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, her
property is a garden land and is filled with coconut
plantations. The respondents have erroneously
classified the same as paddy land and included it in the
data bank.
5. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
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
2025:KER:37820
(1) KLT 433)).
7. Exts.P3 and P4 orders show that the 1 st
respondent has not independently evaluated the nature
and character of the petitioner's property, as on the
crucial date i.e., 12.08.2008, the date of coming into
force of the Act. He has also not directly inspected the
property or called for the satellite images as envisaged
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Therefore, I am satisfied
that, there has been total non-application of mind by the
1st respondent in passing the impugned orders. Hence,
Exts.P3 and P4 orders are 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 of law 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). Exts.P3 and P4 orders are quashed.
2025:KER:37820
(ii). The second respondent is directed to
submit his report as contemplated under Rule 4(4f)
of the Rules to the 1st respondent/authorised officer,
within one month from the date of production of a
copy of the judgment.
(iii) The 1st respondent/ authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 applications
submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law.
It would be up to the authorised officer to either
directly inspect the property or call for satellite
images as per the procedure provided under Rule
4(4f) at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider the Form 5
applications, as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within three months from the date of the
receipt of the satellite images. In case, he proposes
to directly inspect the property, he shall dispose of
the applications within two months from the date of
2025:KER:37820
production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.30.05.25.
2025:KER:37820
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34624/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
05.04.2023 OF THE LAND ISSUED BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3551/2024
DATED 23.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 4173/2024
DATED 23.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
