Kerala High Court
Babu George vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No.40713 of 2025
1
2025:KER:83133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40713 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
BABU GEORGE
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE, THANNIKAMATTATHIL,
SHAPPUMPADI, VENGALLORE P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN - 685608
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.M.JOSHI
SMT.SIJI K.PAUL
SMT.SRUTHI SUNILKUMAR
SHRI. C. GOKULKRISHNAN
SHRI.CLEMENT JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
IDUKKI, PAINAVU P.O, KUYILIMALA,, PIN - 685603
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS)
THODUPUZHA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE THODUPUZHA, PIN:,
PIN - 685584
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, PIN - 685584
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, PIN - 685584
BY ADV.:
SR GP, SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.40713 of 2025
2
2025:KER:83133
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.40713 of 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"1. Quash the Exhibit P5 order No.1250/2023 dated
14.12.2023 issued by the second respondent.
2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ for direction
to the second Respondent to allow the Exhibit P4 application.
3. Declare that the petitioner's land in Re-Survey No.138/3-1,
Block No.001, Thodupuzha Village, has an extent of 3 Ares 64
sq.m, being uncultivable and unsuitable for paddy cultivation,
is liable to be removed from the Data Bank and to issue a
consequential notification re-classified as Purayidam Bhoomi.
4. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit in the circumstances of the case." [SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order
passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting Ext.P4 Form-5
application submitted by the petitioner under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008
('Rules', for brevity). The main grievance of the
2025:KER:83133
petitioner is that the authorised officer has not
considered the contentions of the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused the impugned order. I am
of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has
failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The
impugned order was passed by the authorised officer
based on the reports of the Village Officer and the
Agricultural Officer. There is no indication in the order
that the authorised officer has directly inspected the
property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. There is no independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the land as
on the relevant date by the authorised officer. Moreover,
the authorised officer has not considered whether the
exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the
surrounding paddy fields.
5. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v.
2025:KER:83133
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 [2021 (1) KLT 433], observed that the
competent authority is obliged to assess the nature, lie
and character of the land and its suitability for paddy
cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive
criteria to determine whether the property merits
exclusion from the data bank. The impugned order is not
in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court
in the above judgments. Therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set
aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition(C) is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent / authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P4 Form - 5 application submitted
2025:KER:83133
by the petitioner, in accordance with the law. The
authorised officer shall either conduct a personal
inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for
the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f)
of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner, if not
already called for.
3. If satellite pictures are called for, the application
shall be disposed of within three months from the
date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand,
if the authorised officer opts to personally inspect
the property, the application shall be considered
and disposed of within two months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment by the
petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
nvj
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 04.11.2025
Judgment dictated 04.11.2025
Draft Judgment placed 04.11.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 05.11.2025
2025:KER:83133
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40713/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT IN
RESPECT OF THE LAND DATED 18/10/2025
ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE
THODUPUZHA
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF
THE DATA BANK
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
THIS CONDITION
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 APPLICATION
NO.172/2022/27376 DATED 24-08-2022
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER NO.
1250/20 OF THE RDO DATED 14-12-2023
REJECTING THE FORM-5 APPLICATION
